Appeal No. 2001-2579 Page 11
Application No. 08/885,996
Claim 3 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "said data processing
form comprising one of a byte form, a word form, and a long word form, and if said data
processing form comprises said word form, then said data processing form comprises
one of a high order type and a low order type." Giving the claim its broadest,
reasonable construction, the limitations require confirming whether the printer uses a
byte form, a word form, or a long word form and, if the form comprises the word form,
then confirming whether the form comprises a high order type or a low order type.
"'The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe
as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are
part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.'" In re Heck
699 F2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re
Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Accordingly, “[a]ll
of the disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they fairly teach one of
ordinary skill in the art.” In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA
1966)).
Here, although the aforementioned embodiment of Sasaki is concerned
specifically with confirming that a print driver used by the reference's PC is compatible
with a language interpreter used by its printer, Sasaki more generally teaches the
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007