Appeal No. 2002-0592
Application No. 09/107,090
1978). One must be careful not to confuse impermissible imputing of limitations from
the specification into a claim with the proper reference to the specification to determine
the meaning of a particular word or phrase recited in a claim. See E.I. Du Pont de
Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433, 7 USPQ2d 1129,
1131 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 986 (1988). What we are dealing with in this
case is the construction of the limitations recited in the appealed claims.
The examiner merely maintains that the difference between the claimed invention
and Jordan is in the data source and the data target which is taught by Diwanji and that
the issue distills down to does the prior art teach a class defining such methods to
transfer data from a data source to a data target. (See answer at page 5.) The
examiner maintains that a class defines a method to transfer the data from a data
source to a data target if that class defines the data source and the data target. (See
answer at pages 5-6.) We disagree with the examiner and find that the indication of a
source and a target would encompass every method to transfer data from the source to
the target. The examiner maintains that this is a reasonable interpretation. (See
answer at page 6.) We cannot agree with the examiner’s interpretation. Appellants
have recited in each independent claim the user extensible data transfer mechanism
and a user extensible place class and specific objects and object methods in the place
class. We find it unreasonable for the examiner to disregard all these express
limitations and distill the claimed invention down to a mere designation of a data source
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007