Appeal No. 2003-1145
Application No. 09/080,241
would further point out that this interpretation of the
disclosure of Chan in relation to the language “machine language
program . . . being directly executable” in appealed claim 30 is
buttressed by our review of Appellants’ disclosure in the
specification. 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 the above discussion 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 “directly
executable” language of appealed claim 30. Further adding to
this difficulty is the fact that Appellants’ arguments in the
Briefs do not refer to any specific portion of their
specification or drawing figures in support of their arguments
which attempt to distinguish the claim language from the applied
prior art. Given the paucity of description in Appellants’
specification as to the nature of the machine instructions
generated at the installer location, we can only reach the
conclusion that the “directly executable” language of appealed
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007