Appeal No. 2003-0994
Application No. 08/579,544
Appellants argue at page 14 of the brief, that the references
fail to teach, "invoking, transparent to said invoker, any one
instance of said multiple instances." (Emphasis added). We
agree. The references fail to teach or suggest this limitation.
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 "transparent" that is different
from the ordinary meaning. We find the ordinary meaning of the
term "transparent" is best found in the dictionary. We note that
the definition most suitable for "transparent" is "not visible,
hidden."2
We appreciate the Examiner's position that "transparent" is
met by Travis' method of invoking as discussed in the answer at
2 Dictionary.com. Copy provided to Appellant.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007