Appeal No. 2005-1361
Application No. 09/798,287 6
The claim interpretation proposed by appellants is based on a
disclosure of the preferred embodiment. Yet, appellants’
specification also states that the preferred embodiment is not to
be taken as limiting the claimed invention. We will follow the
general rule that the preferred embodiment will not be read into
the claim, and the terms in the claims will be given the broadest
reasonable interpretation.
When this interpretation is followed, we agree with the
examiner that the state patterns in Dow are stored in a plurality
of registers, these state values are processed into a recall data
pattern (new value), and that this new value is used to search a
set of corrective measures as explained by the examiner. Since
appellants’ arguments are essentially all based on an
interpretation of the claims which we find to be too narrow, we
find that appellants have failed to establish that the examiner’s
rejection is erroneous.
With respect to separately argued claims 3 and 19,
appellants broadly argue that Dow fails to teach where the new
value is a search key used to query the database. Appellants
also repeat the arguments considered above with respect to claim
1 [brief, page 7]. The examiner responds that the search tool 18
of Dow returns an ordered recommendation list of the stored data
patterns in the production database based on the recall data
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007