Appeal No. 96-1534
Application 07/888,991
differs from the phrase “any one of steps” [answer, page 15]. As
a result of this position and the examiner’s entry of a new
rejection in the answer, appellants amended both independent
claims 25 and 28 to read “any one of” a list of steps in an
amendment filed concurrently with the reply brief. For reasons
which are not clear to us, the examiner never addressed what
effect the amendment had on the rejections made by the examiner.
Even though we do not have the examiner’s interpretation
of the amended claims on record before us, such interpretation is
not necessary for disposition of this appeal. Claim
interpretation or construction is a question of law. See In re
Donaldson Co. Inc., 16 F.3d 1189, 1192, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (in
banc)(Fed. Cir. 1994); Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal, Ltd., 781 F.2d
861, 866, 228 USPQ 90, 93 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, we will simply
give the appealed claims the appropriate legal interpretation.
Independent claim 25 recites the step (b) of accessing
information by any one of substeps (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6)
and (7). Because these substeps are connected in an “and”
relationship, we construe claim 25 as requiring that each one of
the seven substeps be performed when the condition corresponding
to that substep is met. Likewise, in order for a prior art
reference to suggest the invention of claim 25, the reference
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007