Appeal No. 2004-2086 Page 7
Application No. 09/238,800
a claim is the interpretation of the term as it would have been
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, unless appellants
have indicated that a different definition of the term should
apply. From our review of appellants specification, we find
appellants reference to "intercepted" (see for example, page 5 of
the specification) to be consistent with the customary meaning of
the term, e.g., "1. to seize or stop on the way, before arrival
at the intended place; stop or interrupt the course of; cut
off.2" Because Boucher does not intercept the message to be
translated, but rather sends the message to the translation site
before sending the message to the recipient, we agree with
appellants (brief, page 4) that Boucher does not teach the
intercepting step of claim 1.
We are not persuaded by the examiner's assertion that item
104 of figure 2A of Boucher discloses intercepting an incoming
message. From our review of Boucher, item 104 of figure 2A of
Boucher represents the translation site. Even if we considered
the translation site to be the recipient, there is no disclosure
in Boucher, and none has been pointed by the examiner, that would
have taught an artisan to intercept the incoming message.
2 Webster's New World Dictionary, © 1968, The World Publishing Company.
A copy of the pertinent page accompanies the decision.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007