Appeal No. 2001-1467 Page 5
Application No. 08/687,039
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.
Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989)).
Here, independent claims 4, 7, and 8 specify in pertinent part the following
limitations: "[a] radio pager for receiving from a base station a paging signal including
an address code group and a message code group, said message code group including
message data and musical note data, . . . said radio pager comprising . . . a melody
generator which generates said alert tone in response to said coincidence, said alert
tone corresponding to, and reproducing at least a portion of the musical note data
separated by said controller from the message code group. . . ." Giving the
independent claims their broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require
generating an alert tone reproduced from musical data coded in a paging signal.
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter is obvious. “In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section
103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007