Appeal No. 1998-1113
Application 08/533,878
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-5, and
7-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is
the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d
1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 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. 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, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir.
1994).
Claim 1 is directed to a method of ordering load
operations. The method includes steps of detecting an ordered
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007