Appeal No. 1997-2246
Application 08/353,572
each other (see Figure 1). The appellants’ argument about
lack of time and frequency diversity in Schwendeman is without
merit.
The appellants further argue that each of the channels
shown in Figure 1 of Schwendeman transmit different
information, contrary to what is required by the appellants’
claims. The appellants cite to the following feature in claim
2: “[E]ach of said transmitters transmitting the same
messages at different times.” Similar limitation is not
represented by the appellants as being present in independent
claim 8 or claim 9 which depends from claim 8. Accordingly,
the argument is directed only to independent claim 2 and claim
4 which depends from claim 2. Claims 8 and 9 are not affected
by this argument.
The argument has merit. During examination claim terms
are properly construed according to their broadest reasonable
interpretation not inconsistent with the specification. In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989); see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1404, 181 USPQ
641, 645 (CCPA 1974). In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162
USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969). Not only does claim 2 expressly
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007