Appeal No. 2002-0252
Application No. 08/735,159
Appellant argues (brief at pages 4 and 5) that Mankovitz
provides only the program listings as the scheduled listing data
embedded in the vertical blanking interval signal and that there
is no information concerning this data service or any other data
service.
As pointed out by the Federal Circuit, we must first
establish the scope of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is the
claim” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USP2d 1523,
1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 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, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671,
1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Thus, we look first to the language of
independent claims 2 and 7 through 10.
The examiner and appellant diverge on the definition of the
data service recited in these claims. We look to the
specification as originally filed for the definition of the data
service. Specifically, appellant discloses (id. at page 4) that
the invention provides a data service, which includes
supplementary information on the data service. This
supplementary information may comprise information on the service
itself, for instance:
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007