Appeal No. 2000-1703
Application No. 08/963,545
used in the claims. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52
F.3d 967, 980, 34 USPQ2d 1321, 1330 (Fed. Cir.) (in banc), aff’d,
116 S. Ct. 1384 (1996). A review of Appellants’ specification
shows that the term “building” is defined (specification, page 2)
as:
[I]ncluding a portion of a building, or a building complex
having two or more structures or portions thereof under
common control, and sharing one network; and might be
applicable to an amusement park or other outdoor situation.
We further observe that Appellants describe other “building”
configurations (specification, page 50) as:
If the “building” actually consists of two structures
which are spaced sufficiently far apart that direct radio
communication from at east one node in one to at least one
node in the other is unreliable, then a single building
computer can control both by providing a data line from the
computer to a transceiver in the remote building. The
problem of interfering packets can probably be minimized,
however, by considering the two structures as one network.
It may even be most economical to link them by placing a
relay transceiver on the exterior of one of the buildings,
or both, similar to the way that the relay T26 is used in
the embodiment of Figs. 1 and 2.
Therefore, the claimed limitation of “within the building”
extends to a building complex or even far apart structures which
are considered as one network. Furthermore, we observe that the
nodes in one structure may communicate with the nodes in other
structures either directly or through a relay transceiver.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007