Appeal No. 2001-0654
Application 08/910,315
the transmitter’s location. Appellants argue that this
limitation is not shown in the Examiner’s proposed combination of
references.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is the
claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523,
1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). As our reviewing court further states
that “the terms used in the claims bear a “heavy presumption”
that they means what they say and have the ordinary meaning that
would be attributed to those words by persons skilled in the
relevant art.” Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc.,
______ F.3d _______, 2002 WL 31307212 *3(Fed. Cir. (Oct. 16,
2002.)).
We note that independent claim 1 recites “[a] transmitter
for communication over a cellular system, comprising: a data
storage device electronically storing predefined personal
identity information unique to the person using said transmitter
for communication to a receiving station over the cellular
system, the predefined personal identity information being
exclusive of any transmitter identifying number and exclusive of
the transmitter’s location; . . . a signal processing element for
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007