Appeal No. 1998-0717
Application 08/099,841
not repugnant to the usual meaning of these terms. They do
not appear to have a “usual meaning.” The appropriate
question for consideration is whether the examiner’s broad
interpretation of these terms is reasonable and consistent
with the use of these terms in the specification. A second
question is whether there is any motivation to combine the
teachings of Skeen, Bland and Fisher in the manner proposed by
the examiner.
On the first question, we find that the various terms
noted above have no usual meanings associated therewith and
make sense in the claims only when interpreted in a manner
consistent with their use in the disclosure. It is clear from
the disclosure that the part kind attributes and the part type
attributes must convey a specific type of information within a
computer system. The claims also reinforce this meaning. It
appears that the examiner has interpreted these terms broad
enough to read on almost any form of data. We agree with
appellants that the collective teachings of the references do
not suggest the automatic dispatching of package parts to
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007