Appeal No. 2005-0891 Page 6
Application No. 09/916,566
“modulating” which is narrower than that applied by the examiner. In this regard, we
note that, in proceedings before it, the USPTO applies to the verbiage of claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the appellants’ specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054,
44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Moreover, absent an express definition in
their specification, the fact that appellants can point to definitions or usages that
conform to their interpretation does not make the USPTO's definition unreasonable
when the USPTO can point to other sources that support its interpretation. Id., 127
F.3d at 1056, 44 USPQ2d at 1029.
In this case, the examiner has interpreted “modulating” (or modulation) as “‘the
variation of a property of an electromagnetic wave or signal, such as its amplitude,
frequency, or phase’ (American Heritage Dictionary of the English language,
www.dictionary.com)” (answer, page 6). The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and
Technical Terms, Fifth Edition McGraw-Hill 1994) defines “modulate” as “[t]o vary the
amplitude, frequency, or phase of a wave, or vary the velocity of the electrons in an
electron beam in some characteristic manner” and “modulation” as “[t]he process or the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007