Appeal No. 1999-0298
Application No. 08/486,780
Adcock does not teach or suggest a second control means, for
controlling power consumption of the pickup/converting means
based on the capacity of the recording medium or memory as
recited in independent claims 32 and 33. Appellants point out
that Adcock does not teach or suggest controlling power but
instead is directed to controlling the tape advance so as to
provide sufficient time to record the picture on the tape.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. "[Tlhe name of the game is the
claim." In re Hiniker, Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523
(Fed. Cir. 1998). In addition, claims are to be interpreted as
broadly as the terms reasonably allow. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Our reviewing
court has stated in In re Donaldson Co. Inc., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193,
29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1994) that the "plain and
unambiguous meaning of paragraph six is that one construing
means-plus-function language in a claim must look to the
specification and interpret that language in light of the
corresponding structure, material, or acts described therein, and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007