Appeal No. 2001-1930
Application No. 08/833,719
output file and the routing table can possibly be the
same file. Indeed, it should be unmistakably clear
from the specification that the output file is one
file, such as that shown in FIG. 8, and the routing
table (map) is a separate and distinct entity, such as
that depicted in FIG. 9.
The examiner responds (answer at page 11) that:
it is noted that the features upon which applicant
relies (i.e., “that the output file and the routing
table are separate and distinct files”) are not recited
in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are
interpreted in light of the specification, limitations
from the specification are not read into the claims.
See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057
(Fed. Cir. 1993).
We agree with the examiner’s position in that claim 1 does
not recite that there are separate and distinct files for the
output file and the routing table and that Norton does disclose
on its storage medium an output file for the edited material
sequence (Fig. 2 each line/row of the EDL), the output file
comprising addressing (time codes) information defining a
sequence (start and ending time codes source and destination) of
storage locations on the storage medium, which addressing
information serves as a routing table (answer at page 4).
Appellant further argues (brief at page 7) that “[a]t best,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007