Appeal No. 95-5061
Application 07/825,979
modeling to the extent claimed. The Examiner argues that
Appellants' specification on page 11, lines 9-10, defines a
computer system model as a "software module, a subprogram." The
Examiner argues that by this definition Luke teach tasks and
subtasks which meets Appellants' claimed "model".
Our reviewing court states in In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) that "claims must be
interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow."
Moreover, when interpreting a claim, words of the claim are
generally given their ordinary and accustomed meaning, unless it
appears from the specification or the file history that they were
used differently by the inventor. Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro
Mechanical Sys., Inc. 15 F.3d 1573, 1577, 27 USPQ2d 1836, 1840
(Fed. Cir. 1993). Although an inventor is indeed free to define
the specific terms used to describe his or her invention, this
must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
precision. In re Paulsen 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671,
1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Appellants argue on pages 3 and of the reply brief that
Appellants' specification on page 11, lines 9 and 10 does not
define a model but defines a node which is part of a larger
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007