Appeal No. 1997-1632 Page 10
Application No. 08/138,555
and 80 and of claims 46, 48, 50-53, and 55-60, which depend from claim 45, as
unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of Larson alone.
Second, the examiner asserts, "Tolson teaches that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have replaced any wired
communication link with a RF modulated wireless communication link." (Paper No. 46
at 3-4.) The appellants argue, "[i]n Tolson, the radio signal that is transmitted is
unmodulated." (Paper No. 47 at 8.)
“[T]he 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)).1 Here, independent claims
45, 68, and 73 further specify using modulation in the aforementioned RF transmission.
1 “The PTO broadly interprets claims during examination of a patent application
since the applicant may ‘amend his claims to obtain protection commensurate with his
actual contribution to the art.’” In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934,
936 (Fed. Cir. 1984)(quoting In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550
(CCPA 1969)). “This approach serves the public interest by reducing the possibility that
claims, finally allowed, will be given broader scope than is justified. Applicants' interests
are not impaired since they are not foreclosed from obtaining appropriate coverage for
their invention with express claim language.” Id. at 1571-72, 222 USPQ at 936 (citing
Prater, 415 F.2d at 1405 n.31, 162 USPQ at 550 n.31).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007