Appeal No. 2006-1978
Application No. 10/027,572
extent Alperovich and Lehto create non-standard messages and/or utilize non-
conventional transmission and processing techniques as asserted by Appellants, no
such non-standard messages or non-conventional processing is precluded by the
language of appealed claim 1.
It is axiomatic that, in proceedings before the PTO, claims in an application
are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and that claim language should be read in light of the specification as
it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d
1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Moreover, limitations are not to
be read into the claims from the specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993) citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
We further find to be unpersuasive Appellants’ argument (Brief, pages
25-27) that the Examiner has misinterpreted the language of claim 1 by treating the
claim language “value-added field” as reciting “value-added data.” Aside from the
fact that we find no error in the Examiner’s interpretation of the “extension” in
Lehto and the “header” in Alperovich as “fields,” we agree with the Examiner
(Answer, pages 17 and 18) that the “instantiation” operation in both Alperovich
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007