Appeal No. 2003-0646
Application No. 09/250,154
as element 52 in Figure 6. The Examiner further argues that
Burns teaches a second control means shown as element 72 in
Figure 6 for receiving search data from said network access
center shown as element 56 in Figure 6 via another network shown
as elements 202, 204, 206 and 208 shown in Figure 6 which are
independent of the Internet shown as element 54 in Figure 6. See
pages 3 and 4 of the Answer. The Examiner further argues that
Appellants’ independent claim 4 does not require the first
controlling means to be connected to the access center via the
Internet. The Examiner argues that the claim does not require a
connection between the first control means and the Internet and
that the claim only requires connection between the network
access center and the Internet. See page 7 of the Answer.
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
limitations appearing in the specification are not to be read
into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007