Appeal No. 1998-2841
Application No. 08/463,282
expected base code and the modified code as predicted by the algorithm. If there is a
match between the base code and the modified code between the remote unit and the
receiving unit, then the receiving unit generates an actuating signal that is dependent on
the received channel code.
In view of Memmola’s disclosure, we find that the level of ordinary skill in the art was
relatively high, and the state of the prior art could not have been far removed from the
instantly claimed invention. Further, at least in view of the claim format chosen by
appellant, the instant claims are relatively narrow in scope. Independent claim 1 is drafted
in the well-known Jepson format; everything prior to the final portion, which begins with “the
improvement wherein,” is presumed to be descriptive of the prior art. We interpret the
claim as setting forth elements which are conventional or known in the portion preceding
“the improvement wherein,” with the conventional or known elements forming part of the
combination. See, e.g., Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed.
Cir. 1997).
The scope of the claims is limited, accordingly, as being an improvement of the
prior art described. Consistent with the presumption that is implicit in the claims, it
appears that Memmola discloses all that is claimed in claim 1 but for the improvement that,
rather than a code comprised of a fixed code and a single variable code, the code further
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007