Appeal No. 2004-0023 Application No. 09/334,574 error therein. We, therefore, decline to make any changes in our prior decision for the reasons which follow. Appellant initially contends that our prior decision misinterprets the language of independent claim 1 as well as misconstrues the teachings of the Markman reference. We find no error, however, in our interpretation of the disclosure of Markman, nor in our conclusions drawn therefrom, as expressed in our prior decision. Appellant reiterates the contention that, unlike the claimed invention which operates on manually grouped articles to verify that the grouping is correct, Markman is operating on ungrouped articles which are reassembled into groups after processing. In making this argument, Appellant relies on the claim language which recites that verification is performed on articles to verify that articles “which were physically grouped by a manual or automated grouping process into a physically grouped order, belong to the physically grouped order . . . .” In Appellant’s view, this claim language must be interpreted as requiring verification after articles have been manually grouped after processing, i.e. after assembly. We remain, however, of the opinion that there is nothing in the language of claim 1 which requires the interpretation urged 2Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007