Appeal No. 2001-2579 Page 8
Application No. 08/885,996
indicate that the claims have different meanings and scope," Karlin Tech., Inc. v.
Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 177 F.3d 968, 971, 50 USPQ2d 1465, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(citing Comark Comms. Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187, 48 USPQ2d 1001,
1005 (Fed. Cir. 1998)), "normally means that limitations stated in dependent claims are
not to be read into the independent claim from which they depend." Id. at 972, 50
USPQ2d at 1468 (citing Transmatic, Inc. v. Gulton Indus., Inc., 53 F.3d 1270, 1277, 35
USPQ2d 1035, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
Here, claim 3 depends from (via claim 2), and further, limits claim 1. More
specifically, the dependent claim recites that "said data processing form comprising one
of a byte form, a word form, and a long word form. . . ." Because these specific data
processing form are stated in claim 3, these are not to be read into claim 1, from which
claim 3 depends. Giving claim 1 its broadest, reasonable construction, therefore, the
limitations merely require confirming a form of a printer's data processing.
Turning to Sasaki, we find that the reference's PC confirms its printer's form of
language. Specifically, the PC sends "an inquiry signal . . . to the laser printer LP, to
ask the printer LP to send back the interpreter-identification data which represent the
types of the language interpreters available on the printer LP. . . ." Col. 7, ll. 20-23.
When the PC "has received the interpreter-identification data from the laser printer LP,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007