Appeal 2007-2593
Application 09/859,359
1 automatically subtract the discount from the items when the proper
2 number of them have been scanned (Sloane 8:30-39).
3 11. Sloane’s Fig. 8c shows another example of a promotion message that
4 tells the consumer that a discount is being offered on a complimentary or
5 related product elsewhere in the store. If the consumer locates and scans
6 the related product required for the promotion, the system automatically
7 subtracts the discount from the price of the item and records the
8 purchase at the discounted price (Sloane 8:40-49).
9 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
10 Claim Construction
11 During examination of a patent application, pending claims are given
12 their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In
13 re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969); In re Am. Acad. of Sci.
14 Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
15 Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not
16 read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed.
17 Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted “in view of the specification” without
18 importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily)
19 Although a patent applicant is entitled to be his or her own lexicographer of
20 patent claim terms, in ex parte prosecution it must be within limits. In re Corr,
21 347 F.2d 578, 580 (CCPA 1965). The applicant must do so by placing such
22 definitions in the Specification with sufficient clarity to provide a person of
23 ordinary skill in the art with clear and precise notice of the meaning that is to be
24 construed. See also In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (although
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013