Appeal No. 2000-1326 Page 5
Application No. 08/658,272
give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, this
interpretation must be consistent with the one that those
skilled in the art would reach.” In re Cortright, 165 F3d
1353, 1358, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1999)(citing In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir.
1997); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567
(Fed. Cir. 1990); M.P.E.P. § 2111.01). Here, claim 30
specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: “[a]
compiler apparatus. . . .” The issue, then, is whether the
examiner’s interpretation of the claimed compiler as reading
on Furukawa’s program interpreter is consistent with the one
that those skilled in the art would reach.
Contrary to the examiner’s interpretation, the dictionary
on which he relies evidences that those skilled in the art
distinguish an interpreter from a compiler. Specifically, it
defines the term "interpret" as “execut[ing] a program by
translating one statement at a time rather into executable
form and executing it before translating the next statement,
rather than by translating the program completely into
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007