Appeal No. 2002-0543 Page 8
Application No. 09/118,629
illumination. The appellant's argument overlooks "the relevant combined teachings of
the references. . . ." Andersen, 391 F.2d at 958, 157 USPQ at 281.
B . ONE-SHOT TIMER
The examiner finds, "Wobschall teaches (page 255) that one-shot multivibrators
could also be implemented using positive-edge-triggered pulses (Figure 16-2)."
(Examiner's Answer at 8.) The appellant argues, "application of the teachings of the
Wobschall reference to the present invention would result in a light that is constantly
illuminated and only extinguished upon receipt of a signal from the proximity sensor."
(Appeal Br. at 8.)
1. Claim Construction
"[T]he Board must give claims their broadest reasonable construction. . . ." In
re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000). "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)).
Here, claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "a one-shot timer
circuit for receiving an actuation signal . . . and for actuating said light for a
predetermined period of time in response to said actuation signal." Giving the
representative claim its broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require that a
one-shot circuit actuate a light for a period of time in response to a triggering signal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007