Appeal No. 2000-2253 Page 3
Application No. 08/798,137
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-11, 14, 16, 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,619,525 (“Wiedeman”). Claims 3, 4, 7, 12, and 17
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Wiedeman in view of U.S.
Patent No. 5,579,319 (“Daniel”). Claims 13 and 15 stand rejected under § 103(a) as
obvious over Wiedeman in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,539,730 (“Dent”).
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or appellant in toto, we
address the main point of contention therebetween. The examiner asserts, "Wiedeman
teaches mobile terminals may be dual use devices (capable of operating in full duplex
mode, i.e., L-band RF links and S-band RF links)." (Examiner's Answer at 6.) The
appellant argues, "[t]he bandwidths of the S and L band links . . . encompass the same
bandwidth of 16.5MHz and not different bandwidths as claimed." (Reply Br. at 3.)
“Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the invention claimed?”
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). In answering the question, “the 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 Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007