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 whenPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007