Appeal No. 2002-2034
Application No. 09/175,080
The examiner, in reply, states that by pressing the interrupt
key 43, a user may enter additional destinations and then send the
facsimile to the preprogrammed destinations as well as any
additional destinations in a single operation (Examiner’s Answer,
page 11, line 3 - page 12, line 11).
In the counter position, the appellant notes that it is not
pertinent as to whether the facsimile messages are all sent at the
same time, but whether the recited sequence of entering addresses
and sending the messages is taught by Fukushima (Appeal Brief,
page 8, lines 5-9).
It is by now well-understood that it is applicants' claims
which define the subject matter for which they seek protection.
United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 232, 55
USPQ 381, 383-384 (1942) (citing General Electric Co. v. Wabash
Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 369, 37 USPQ 466, 468-469 (1938);
In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 322, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed.
Cir. 1989); SRI Int'l. v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107,
1121, 227 USPQ 577, 586 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, we begin our
review by determining what is the scope and content of appellant’s
claims here on appeal.
The appellant argues that the claims recite a particular
order of steps. We note that this is only true when such order is
expressly recited or required, for example by the use of the word
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007