Appeal No. 2004-2261 Page 9
Application No. 09/494,690
suggested by the applied prior art: (1) "a perspective template having at least one
supply chain icon, the perspective template providing a pre-populated framework to
evaluate the manufacturing operation" as recited in independent claims 4 and 10; and
(2) "at least one perspective template having a pre-arranged supply chain
representation" as recited in independent claim 20.
Our decision
The decision to either affirm the rejection or reverse the rejection under appeal
comes down to meaning of the term "template" as used in the two phrases quoted in the
above paragraph.1 The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) applies to
the verbiage of the claims before it the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in
their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art,
taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may
be afforded by the written description contained in the appellant's specification. In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). It is our view, that
one of ordinary skill in this art would have understood the word "template" to be a
1 Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the invention claimed? Claim interpretation,
in light of the specification, claim language, other claims, and prosecution history, will normally control the
remainder of the decisional process. See Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Manufacturing Co., 810 F.2d 1561,
1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1052 (1987).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007