Appeal No. 2001-2286
Application 09/022,193
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejection and the arguments of Appellant
and Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In the brief and reply brief, Appellant argues that neither
Suzuki nor Francisco teaches or suggests a means for executing a
special registration mode in which registered sales information
is stored in a second sub-portion of the special purchasers.
Appellant further argues that neither Suzuki nor Francisco
teaches or suggests a sales information storage means which
includes total quantity and total price for each item sold.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is the
claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523,
1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Claims will be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and
limitations appearing in the specification are not to be read
into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5
(Fed. Cir.) cert. denied, 474 U.S. 828 (1985).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007