Appeal No. 2003-0954
Application No. 09/306,190
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants’ argue, “the White Paper does not
provide any teaching of determining, during execution of an interpreted method, to compile the
interpreted method.” (brief, page 15, lines 27-29) The Examiner responds, “claim 1 […] does
not claim whether it runs completely the first method or not.” (answer, page 14, lines 3-4)
Appellants reply, “claims 1 and 2 clearly state that the determination to compile is made during
execution” and “do state that the method is not run completely.” (reply brief, page 8, lines 33-35)
We find Appellants’ argument persuasive.
Our reviewing court 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.”
Our reviewing court further states, “[t]he terms used in the claims bear a ‘heavy presumption’
that they mean what they say and have the ordinary meaning that would be attributed to those
words by persons skilled in the relevant art.” Texas Digital Sys. Inc v. Telegenix Inc., 308 F.3d
1193, 1202, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1058 (2003).
Upon our review of Appellants’ specification, we fail to find any definition of the term
“during” that is different from the ordinary meaning. We find the ordinary meaning of the term
“during” is best found in the dictionary. We note that the definition most suitable for “during” is
“at some time in”.2 We find that the claim language precludes reading on a determination that
occurs “after” the execution of the interpreted method such as in the prior art system of
Appellants’ background and in the Java Hotspot system of the White Paper. As pointed out by
2 Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary, 1988, page 411. Copy provided to
Appellants.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007