Appeal No. 2006-0696
Application 90/005,546
prior art to the claims. Proper claim interpretation should simplify the issues for appellate
review.
As guidance to the examiner, for two limitations that are at issue in the appeal, we
indicate how the limitations may be construed, and whether, based on that construction, the
Lindsey reference describes those limitations. The examiner may also find assistance from
applicants’ response to the Board’s request for additional briefing. Specifically, appellant
submitted a claim chart identifying every means-plus-function or step plus function recited in
each independent and dependent claim argued separately on appeal, and the corresponding
structure, material or acts described in the specification which correspond to each claimed
function by reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawings by
reference numeral in accordance with Bd.R. 50(d) and Bd.R. 37(c)(1)(v). See “Response to
June 15, 2006 Board Order 50(d) for Additional Briefing” in application 90/005,546, dated
30 June 2006.
Independent claims 19, 24 and 27 and “interleave”
At least independent claims 19, 24 and 27 recite a processor means that directs the
“robotic arm to interleave the process steps of said plurality of independent analysis
procedures...” (emphasis added). An issue raised in the appeal is the meaning of the word
“interleave.” In order to properly construe the quoted phrase, it must be determined what
“interleave” means and what is being interleaved.
During prosecution, claim limitations are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretion in light of the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997; In re
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007