Appeal No. 2003-0977
Application No. 09/219,995
4, lines 1-5). Appellants then conclude, "the Examiner is
incorrect in stating that the Bogart reference anticipates
associating a category of levels, e.g., numerical values, with a
plurality of skills supported by a given agent." Although we
agree with the initial steps of Appellants' analysis, we do not
find that it is sufficient, standing alone, to reach Appellants'
conclusion. Therefore, our analysis follows below.
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 "category" that is different from
the ordinary meaning. We find the ordinary meaning of the term
"category" is best found in the dictionary. We note that the
definition most suitable for "category" is "a specifically
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007