Appeal No. 2002-0807
Application No.08/672,588
We also find to be unpersuasive Appellants’ arguments that
none of the applied prior art references disclose a “pre-defined
generic program” running on the second processor. In reviewing
the language of claim 27, we note that it is a basic tenet of
patent law that claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the description in the
specification. With this in mind, we have reviewed Appellants’
specification for guidance as to the proper interpretation of the
claim language, and we find little enlightenment as to how to
properly interpret the “pre-defined generic program” language of
claim 27. Further adding to this difficulty is the fact that
Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs do not refer to any specific
portion of their specification in support of their arguments
which attempt to distinguish the claim language from the applied
prior art. Accordingly, in interpreting the language of claim
27, we will give the terminology “pre-defined generic program”
its ordinary and accepted meaning and, in doing so, find
ourselves in agreement with the Examiner’s analysis articulated
at page 4 of the Answer.
As asserted by the Examiner, the operating system software
of the second processor, which controls the execution of the
subprogram code (Crawford, Appendix C), would meet the ordinary
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007