Appeal No. 2000-2282
Application 08/713,046
Let us say [Bosack’s] packet broadcasting comprises three
transmissions in all. The first two transmissions of the
broadcast would anticipate the limitation “one or more first
transmissions” in step (b) and the last transmission of the
broadcast would anticipate the limitation “a second
transmission” in step (c).
See Answer page 7, lines 6-9.
Thus, the question presented before us is whether the
Examiner reasonably interpreted claim 25 steps (b) and (c) so as
to be met by Bosack’s multiple transmissions of a packet.
Claims will be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations
appearing in the specification are not to be read into the
claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir.
1985).
We find nothing in the claims or in the specification that
precludes an interpretation of steps (b) and (c) of claim 25 to
include multiple transmissions of a packet as conducted in
Bosack’s packet broadcasting. Step (b) of Claim 25 recites:
if a packet destination specified by the forwarding
information includes a station other than the apparatus,
then conducting one or more first transmissions of the
packet to one or more of the network segments in order to
deliver the packet to the packet destination.
Stress added. Step (b) requires sending the packet via one or
more transmissions to the packet’s destination, which is a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007