Appeal No. 1999-2690
Application 08/720,563
cells without merging the read signals.” (Brief, page 4). After
careful review of the Wilder reference in light of the arguments
of record, however, we are in agreement with the Examiner’s
position as stated in the Answer.
Initially, we find that Appellant’s arguments are not
commensurate with the scope of the claim. It is axiomatic that,
in proceedings before the PTO, claims in an application are to be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specification, and that claim language should be read in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218
USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). 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).
Although Appellant asserts that Wilder’s disclosed
circuitry, pointing to the illustration in Wilder’s Figure 6, has
only a single horizontal sense line for each pixel in a row
thereby prohibiting the simultaneous reading of each individual
pixel, we find no language in appealed claim 4 which requires the
simultaneous reading of sensor cells. Further, it is our view
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007