Appeal No. 2001-0688
Application No. 08/689,721 Page 9
of the user" can be carried out after the steps of pulling the
recorder apart, inserting the ring, and reconnecting the sections
of the recorder.
As set forth by our reviewing court in Interactive Gift
Express Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1401, 1416 (Fed. Cir.
2001) "Unless the steps of a method actually recite an order, the
steps are not ordinarily construed to require one." See Loral
Fairchild Corp. v. Sony Corp., 181 F.3d 1313, 1322, 50 USPQ2d
1865, 1870(Fed. Cir. 1999) (stating that “not every process claim
is limited to the performance of its steps in the order
written”). However, such a result can ensue when the method
steps implicitly require that they be performed in the order
written. See Loral, 181 F.3d at 1322, 50 USPQ2d at 1870 (stating
that “the language of the claim, the specification and the
prosecution history support a limiting construction[, in which
the steps must be performed in the order written,] in this
case”); Mantech, 152 F.3d at 1376, 47 USPQ2d at 1739 (holding
that “the sequential nature of the claim steps is apparent from
the plain meaning of the claim language and nothing in the
written description suggests otherwise”)." We are in agreement
with appellant that the invention does not require that the steps
of suspending the strap from the neck of the user and placing the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007