Appeal No. 1998-3342 Page 5
Application No. 08/540,943
reception range is less than a desired reception range, and
increasing attenuation if the reception range exceeds the
desired reception range, col. 1, col. 2, lines 10-36."
(Examiner's Answer at 4.) With this allegation in mind, we
consider the appellants' arguments regarding the following
group of claims:
• claims 1 and 4
• claims 2, 3, 5, and 6.
We start with the first group.
I. Claims 1 and 4
The appellants argue, "Sasaki does not teach ... setting
the reception range of a receiver." (Appeal Br. at 8.)
“‘[T]he main purpose of the examination, to which every
application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what
each claim defines is patentable. [T]he name of the game is
the claim ....’” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369,
47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998)(quoting Giles S. Rich,
The Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of
Claims--American Perspectives, 21 Int'l Rev. Indus. Prop. &
Copyright L. 497, 499, 501 (1990)). Here, claims 1 and 4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007