Appeal No. 2001-2601
Application No. 09/167,897
without gondola controllers, similar to Appellant's invention.
See page 20 of the Examiner's answer.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. "[T]he name of the game is the
claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523,
1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Claims will be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and
limitation appearing in the specification are not to be read into
the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed.
Cir. 1985).
We note that Appellant's independent claim 1, recites "(b)
determining unique EPL identifiers for each EPL in the group of
EPLs from a table linking the unique group identifiers to the
unique EPL identifiers; and (c) sending messages addressed to the
unique EPL identifiers which contain identical information." We
note that Appellant's other independent claims 1-6, 13 and 21
recite similar language. Thus, Briechle requires determining
unique electronic price label identifiers for each electronic
price label in a group of electronic price labels from a table
linking the unique identifier to a unique electronic price label
identifier and sending messages addressed the unique electronic
price label identifiers which contain identical information. In
77
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007