Appeal No. 97-1353 Page 5
Application No. 07/843,704
DISCUSSION
Claim construction is the first step in determining
patentability. See Key Pharm. Inc. v. Hercon Labs., 161 F.3d
709, 713, 48 USPQ2d 1911, 1915 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (observing
that determining validity first requires claim construction).
We begin by construing the claims "to define the scope and
meaning of each contested limitation." Gechter v. Davidson,
116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
During proceedings before the Office, claims are given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification as understood by a person having ordinary skill
in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385,
388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Appellants specifically contest the meaning of "user" in
the claims. According to Appellants, the "user" is an "end
user" (cf. Paper No. 1 at 3), not a programmer (see, e.g.,
Paper No. 13 at 7; Paper No. 1 at 5 (programming is not
appropriate for end users)). The examiner does not challenge
this distinction between programmer and user. Instead, the
examiner relies on portions of Simonetti referring to user
data entry to argue that Simonetti meets this element of the
claim. (Paper No. 14 at 4-5.) Although we will adopt
Appellants' definition of "user" to mean "end user" for the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007