Appeal No. 1997-2158 Page 6
Application No. 08/234,239
specification. (Reply Br. Addressing Supp.
Examiner’s Answer at 4.)
The examiner replies, “The determination of the electronic
indicia is a determination of what is ‘in’ the program. The
comparison of the indicia indicates a form of data that is
invalid.” (Supplemental Examiner’s Answer at 2.) We agree
with the appellants.
“Claims are not interpreted in a vacuum, but are part of
and are read in light of the specification.” Slimfold Mfg.
Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc., 810 F.2d 1113, 1116, 1 USPQ2d
1563, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing Hybritech Inc. v.
Monoclonal Anti-bodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1385, 231 USPQ
81, 94-95 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Mattison, 509 F.2d 563, 565,
184 USPQ 484, 486 (CCPA 1975)). Here, claims 1 and 4-8 each
specifies in pertinent part the following limitations:
storing for access ... a plurality of
definitions of forms of data indicative of
invalidity of items of data;
...
determining ... whether any of the stored forms
of data are present in the item of data and
declaring the item of data invalid if any of the
stored forms of data are present in the item of data
....
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007