Appeal 2006-2996
Application 10/066,157
OPINION
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether steps a) through c) of
the claimed method encompassed by claim 15 and the same method steps
couched in essentially the same language in appealed independent claim 39
can be reasonably interpreted as encompassing step d) of the claimed
method encompassed by claim 15 and similarly in claim 39. We interpret
the language of these claims by giving the terms thereof the broadest
reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the written
description in the specification, including the drawings, unless another
meaning is intended by appellant as established in the written description of
the specification, and without reading into the claims any limitation or
particular embodiment disclosed in the specification. See, e.g., In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed.
Cir. 2004); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027
(Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322
(Fed. Cir. 1989).
We agree with Appellant that when the plain language of claims 15
and 39 is considered in light of the disclosure in the written description in
the specification, the step of “calibrating a sensitivity of the detection
system” is indeed separate from the steps specified for determining the
position of the focal plane with the use of a calibration member, even though
the step of “calibrating a sensitivity of the detection system” uses “the
detection system signals generated from the calibration member” in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007