Appeal No. 2003-0646
Application No. 09/250,154
(Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 828 (1985). Our reviewing
court also states in In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d
1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) that “claims must be interpreted as
broadly as their terms reasonably allow.”
Appellants argue that the scope of Appellants’ claims do
require that the first control means is connected to the network
access center through the Internet. Appellants argue that the
claim clearly recites that the first control issues a data search
request to a network access center connected to the Internet.
The only manner as recited in the claims for the network access
center to receive search requests issued from the first
controlling means is via the Internet and the only manner recited
in the claims for the network access center to supply search
data to the second controlling means is via another network
independent of the Internet. See page 2 of Appellants’ Reply
Brief. Appellants further recite that this is fully supported by
Appellants’ Specification and Drawing which clearly show a first
controlling means (searching server 1) for receiving a search
request from the client terminal 6 and issuing a data search
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007