Appeal No. 2002-0884
Application No. 08/852,507
After reviewing the Fults reference in light of the arguments
of record, we are in general agreement with Appellants’ position as
expressed in the Briefs. Although the Examiner interprets (Answer,
page 4) the specific user interfaces and the generic user interface
in Fults as being “application programs,” we find no evidentiary
support for such a conclusion. We agree with Appellants that the
Examiner has provided no documentary support for the asserted
definition (id.) of an “application program” as “... a program
designed to assist in the performance of a specific task, such as
to exchange information with the operating system.” When not
defined by an applicant in the specification, the words of a claim
must be given their plain meaning. In other words, they must be
read as they would be interpreted by those of ordinary skill in the
art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1547, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir. 1983).
Our review of Fults reveals that the generic user interface
software as well as the specific user interface software are
specifically described as being part of the operating system
software (Fults, column 15, line 6 to column 16, line 5, column 24,
lines 38-49, and column 25, lines 26-35) which, in our view, a
skilled artisan would recognize as being in contrast with
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007