Appeal 2007-1983
Application 09/800,366
Notwithstanding this express definition, Appellant nevertheless has, in
effect, distinguished the scope of the term “frame time” in claim 1 from this
definition. Significantly, claim 13 depends from claim 1 and further narrows
the “frame time” limitation. But this narrower limitation is commensurate
with Appellant’s definition in the Specification -- namely that the frame time
“is the time it takes for the array to produce a complete image of an object
being viewed by the array.”
“The doctrine of claim differentiation creates a presumption that each
claim in a patent has a different scope…The difference in meaning and
scope between claims is presumed to be significant to the extent that the
absence of such difference in meaning and scope would make a claim
superfluous.” Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Intern., Inc., 423 F.3d
1343, 1351, 76 USPQ2d 1432, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted).
Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, we therefore presume that
the scope of the term “frame time” in claim 1 is broader than the limitation
recited in claim 13 -- a limitation commensurate with the definition of
“frame time” in the Specification. To do otherwise would render claim 13
superfluous.
With this interpretation in mind, we turn to the prior art. In our view,
the preliminary measurements from the infrared sensors in Wood ‘149 are
each obtained (and subsequently averaged) prior to obtaining a complete
image with improved sensitivity. Therefore, these preliminary
measurements -- measurements obtained by applying at least one pulse to
the infrared sensors corresponding to each preliminary measurement --
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013