Sterne, Kessler rehearing request in Ex parte Carlson fails at Board

Within Ex parte Carlson

We note that “[T]he PTO gives claims their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.’” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324, (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). “Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).

Here, Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the limitations of representative claim 1, or claims 2-22 which were not argued separately. Appellant argues limitations not recited in the claims. The claims do not recite the “formation of symbols constituting a varying number of bits depending on the data rate.” (Req. Reh’g. 5.) We decline to read the argued limitations into the claims from the Specification.