Appeal No. 2000-0546
Application 08/509,228
precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671,
1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Our reviewing court states in In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
that “claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms
reasonably allow.”
We note that Appellants’ specification states that “speaker
position data 34 comprises Cartesian coordinates defining the
location of the speaker.” Specification, page 9, lines 19-21.
Additionally, we note that Appellants’ specification describes
the Cartesian coordinates in terms of three variables (x, y and
z). Specification, page 19, line 36. Finally in referencing
page 9 and Figure 9 of Appellants’ specification, Appellants
admit that their “invention uses beamforming to establish a
speaker’s location in three dimensions[.]” Appeal Brief, page 5,
lines 22-23. Thus, for the reasons stated above, Appellants have
shown that the speaker position data representing a position of
the speaker as coordinates for a point in space must include
coordinates in three dimensions.
The Examiner argues that Baker discloses speaker position
data representing a position of the speaker as coordinates for a
point in space. To support this position, the Examiner refers to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007