Appeal No. 97-0642
Application 08/242,318
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The Examiner considers the phrase "text extension" to be
vague and indefinite "because it is unclear how text is
considered extended when the claim language indicates
conversion" (FR2). Appellant argues that "extensions" are
defined in the art as "small files that temporarily become
part of the system software" and "[a]s noted in the
specification, the text extension system manages multiple
'extensions' each of which 'acts as a filter which controls
the conversion of text from one text domain to another'"
(Br7). In any case, Appellant argues, an applicant is
entitled to be his own lexicographer.
We agree with Appellant. The phrase "text extension"
does not imply text is "extended" in some way as the Examiner
states. The term "text extension system" is consistent with
the description in the specification at page 17 as controlling
the conversion of text from one text domain to another. The
claims are not indefinite. The rejection of claims 11-20 is
reversed.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007