Appeal No. 2005-2338
Application No. 09/754,001
earlier”, nor do we consider the case to stand for such a proposition.
Additionally, infringement deals with the claims of a patent. When construing
patent claims our reviewing court has said it is an old axiom that patents “are to
receive a liberal construction, and under the fair application of the rule, ut res
magis valeat quam pereat, are, if practicable, to be so interpreted as to uphold
and not to destroy the right of the inventor,” Nazomi Communications Inc. v.
ARM Holdings PLC, 403 F.3d 1364, 1368, 74 USPQ2D 1458, 1461 (Fed. Cir
2005, (citing Turrill v. Mich. S. & N. Ind. R.R., 68 U.S. 491, 510 (1863)
(emphasis original). However, appellants’ claims have not been allowed and are
not issued as a patent. There can be no infringement as there are no patent
claims in question. Thus, we can make no findings concerning infringement.
Additionally, as stated supra we find that Teper does teach the use of a GUID
based upon the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term. The
standard for claim interpretation before the office is different than for
infringement, before the office claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858,
225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, we are not persuaded by appellants’
arguments. Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1. As
appellants have not provided separate arguments for claims 6, 9 through 11, 15
through 18, and 22 through 24, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of these
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007