Appeal No. 2003-2072
Application No. 09/735,439
inventor chooses to be his own lexicographer in the
specification. In re Bass, 314 F.3d at 577, 65 USPQ2d at 1158,
citing Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Mach. Co., 32 F.3d 542, 547,
31 USPQ2d 1666, 1670 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
We note that Appellant has not argued that the term
"switches" as recited in claim 1 has a definition other than the
ordinary and accustomed meaning. Furthermore, we note that the
ordinary and accustomed meaning of switches does not preclude
functioning in the frequency domain as well as the time domain.
Furthermore, we note that a low-pass filter when viewed in the
frequency domain is a switch. Therefore, we find that the
Examiner's proposed combination of having a first and second
Hamano's low-pass filter connected to the first and second
outputs of the first routing switch reads on all the limitations
recited in Appellant's claim 1.
Even if the claim was rewritten to preclude this
interpretation, we further find that the Hamano's low-pass
filters would act as switches in the time domain as well.
Turning to Miyata's Figure 1, when transistor 6 is open (i.e.,
non-conducting) then transistor 10 is closed (i.e., conducting).
The result is that output terminal 2 is connected to ground 11
through conducting transistor 7. When Hamano's low-pass filter
99
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007