Ex Parte Fraser et al - Page 6

                Appeal 2007-0251                                                                              
                Application 10/085,310                                                                        

                      Moreover, the evidence provided from the Web page (apparently                           
                printed February 11, 2004) was last updated on September 9, 2003 (second                      
                printed page) and copyrighted “2003-2004” (third printed page).  The instant                  
                application was filed February 28, 2002.  The proffered evidence thus does                    
                not necessarily reflect the artisan’s understanding of the term at the time of                
                invention (on this record, February 28, 2002).                                                
                      Appellants also rely on a definition for “handheld computer” from                       
                another Web page, which designates 1997 as the date of copyright.                             
                According to the single entry, “handheld computer” is defined as “a                           
                computer small enough to be carried in your pocket.”                                          
                      The “definition” is, manifestly, informal.  Pockets come in a great                     
                variety of sizes, ranging from thimble-sized to very large (e.g., a pocket in                 
                an apron, a farmer’s overalls, a pocketbook, or a backpack). The entity that                  
                provided the asserted definition could not know the size of the reader’s                      
                pocket.  We cannot surmise what the size of “your” pocket may be, at this                     
                time or in any future time, without knowing who “you” are and what “you”                      
                are wearing or otherwise possess.  Such a “definition” would not provide                      
                reasonable notice as to what the claim might include or exclude.                              
                      Moreover, the evidence provided by Appellants may speak to the                          
                meaning of “handheld computer,” but Appellants are not claiming a                             
                “handheld computer.”  The preamble of instant claim 15 purports a                             
                “handheld computing device.”  Appellants’ evidence does not demonstrate                       
                that the artisan would have considered the term “handheld computing                           
                device” as excluding the laptop or notebook computers described by                            
                Moriconi.                                                                                     


                                                      6                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013