Appeal No. 2000-1508 Page 13
Application No. 08/810,442
702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Burckel,
592 F.2d 1175, 1178-79, 201 USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA 1979)).
Here, rather than arguing separately the patentability of
claim 2, the appellant stipulates, “[c]laims 2 . . . depend[s]
from claim 1. The discussion of claim 1 applies to claim 2.”
(Appeal Br. at 12.) Therefore, claim 2 stands or falls with
representative claim 1.
The appellant then argues, “[c]laim 1 recites that all
external input is received on a single port. Gammie provides
input to DECODER 506 on (1) link 505 and (2) through module 514.”
(Appeal Br. at 8.) The examiner answers, “Gammie's element 514
which is part of the decryption apparatus (second computation
means) receives its input over the same input port, satellite
link 505, as the program descrambler 508 (first computation
means).” (Examiner’s Answer at 10.)
“[T]he Board must give claims their broadest reasonable
construction. . . .” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d
1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Moreover, limitations are not to
be read into the claims from the specification.” In re Van
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007