Appeal No. 2001-1480 Page 5
Application No. 09/129,285
the system in a driverless vehicle navigation system (column
5, lines 41-43). However, for the reasons which follow, we
share appellant’s view that the transmission of best route
information to vehicles does not constitute transmitting
traffic control signals to traffic control devices as recited
in claim 1. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claim 1 or claims 3 and 5-7 which
depend from claim 1.
While it is true that the claims in a patent application
are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification during prosecution of a
patent application (see, for example, In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)), it is also
well settled that terms in a claim should be construed as
those skilled in the art would construe them (see Specialty
Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 986, 6 USPQ2d 1601,
1604 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016,
194 USPQ 187, 194 (CCPA 1977).
In this instance, it is apparent from a reading of page
1, lines 9-18, of appellant’s specification that “traffic
control devices” as used in appellant’s specification refer to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007