Appeal No. 2005-1361
Application No. 09/798,287 5
Appellants respond that the claim terminology must be
interpreted in light of the disclosure. Based on this,
appellants argue that the status registers of the claimed
invention should be interpreted as being associated with each of
the components that stores a status code corresponding to the
status of the component. Based on this interpretation,
appellants argue that Dow does not meet the claimed invention
because the machine states in Dow are outputs of a single UUT and
the status values of a plurality of components. Thus, appellants
argue that neither the machine states nor the recall patterns of
Dow are a status code corresponding to the status of the
component [reply brief, pages 2-6].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 and the rejection of claims 2, 7, 8, 11, 13, 16-18, 23,
24, 27, 29 and 32 which have not been separately argued by
appellants. We decline to interpret the claimed invention in the
manner proposed by appellants in the reply brief. Claims are to
be given their broadest reasonable interpretation during
prosecution. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320,
1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162
USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969). It is improper to narrow the scope of
the claim by implicitly reading in disclosed limitations from the
specification which have no express basis in the claims. See Id.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007