Appeal No. 2005-0376
Application No. 10/034,120
that “[i]n contrast, Massaloux generates silence descriptor frames at an encoder side.”
(Reply Brief at 2.)
The claims measure the invention. SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d
1107, 1121, 227 USPQ 577, 585 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). During prosecution before
the USPTO, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, and the
scope of a claim cannot be narrowed by reading disclosed limitations into the claim.
See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Prater, 415
F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969). We appreciate the differences
between Massaloux and the instant disclosed invention. However, we find the
examiner’s claim interpretation to be reasonable. We agree that the claims do not
distinguish over generation of a plurality of silence packets at a transmit (encoder) side.
In particular, the claims do not specify that the silence packets are generated at the
receive (decoder) side, but only that the silence packets are derived from speech data
that is received at a decoder side. The derivation may be performed at the encoder
side, with the silence packets derived from speech data that is transmitted from the
encoder side and received at the decoder side.
In view of this broad but reasonable interpretation of the language, we agree with
the examiner that Massaloux teaches or would have suggested the process and system
in controversy, to the extent claimed, at least in the detailed description of Figures 2a
and 2b (col. 4, l. 24 - col. 6, l. 20). We read appellants’ arguments as being founded on
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007