Appeal No. 2001-0966
Application No. 08/852,660
programs which issue a request (claim 23), or the provider of a
program call from a program call statement embodied in the
application program (independent claim 29).
After reviewing the Duxbury reference in light of the
arguments of record, we are in general agreement with Appellants’
position as expressed in the Brief. Although claims are to be
given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, the Examiner is required to provide a basis for
interpreting claim language in a particular manner. Our review of
Duxbury reveals that although several programs in the disclosed
system are identified as “application” programs (e.g. banking
application 11 and server applications 14), the transaction
processing monitor 18 is not identified as such. While this fact
alone is not conclusive of whether the transaction processing
monitor 18 of Duxbury can reasonably be interpreted as an
“application program,” it, at least in our view, requires the
Examiner to provide some basis for the asserted interpretation.
In reviewing the Examiner’s stated position, we note that when
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007