Appeal No. 1997-0629
Application No. 08/085,505
it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1983). Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the
claims from the specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In
re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989)).
We do not interpret the language of independent claim 2
as requiring that any transport service provider dynamically
included in the service provider set be previously “not
running” on the computer. Conversely, regardless of the
correctness of Appellant’s analysis of the operation of
Britton’s system, we find nothing in the language of claim 2
which would preclude the inclusion of presently “up and
running” transport service providers in the claimed set of
service providers.
Further, even allowing for possible differing interpre-
tations of the language of subparagraph c) of claim 2, it is
our view that the system of Britton explicitly meets the claim
requirements. The flow chart illustration in Britton’s Figure
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007