Appeal No. 2002-1687
Application No. 09/188,712
may dictate during interactive sessions. Appellants argue that the Examiner’s reliance
on the Peters teaching which provides stored data in a filtered form cannot read on
Appellants’ claimed, on-line analytical processing. See pages 3 through 4 of
Appellants’ reply brief.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first determine the scope of
claims 12 and 18. “[T]he name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d
1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Claims will be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitation
appearing in the specification are not to be read into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d
852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Our reviewing court also states in In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) that “claims must be
interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.” As our reviewing court states,
“The terms used in the claims bear a ‘heavy presumption’ that they mean what they say
and have the ordinary meaning that would be attributed to those words by persons
skilled in the relevant art.” Texas Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193,
1202, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “Moreover, the intrinsic record also
must be examined in every case to determine whether the presumption of ordinary and
customary meaning is rebutted.” (citation omitted). “Indeed, the intrinsic record may
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007