Appeal No. 1998-3383
Application 08/352,662
Stevens functions change the file access permission of an
existing file and a file is not a process.
Appellant argues that a file access permission is not a
process variable as recited in Appellant's claims 1 and 12.
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).
Upon our review of Stevens and Bristol and in view of the
Appellant's special meaning to the claimed terms "undefined"
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007