Appeal No. 2003-1030
Application No. 08/820,181
Appellant further argues that both Davidson and Periwal fail to teach anything about
“enforcing order in the system.” (Brief at pages 11-13.) We do not find this argument to
be commensurate with the scope of independent claim 1 since we find no limitation to
enforcing or assuring any order which is preset or stored. Therefore, this argument is
not persuasive. We have reviewed the copies of emails that appellant has attached to
the brief, but do not find these excerpts to be persuasive since no corresponding
discussion of the generalized teachings of Periwal have been made of record and no
discussion of the specifics of the language of independent claim 1 have been made by
appellant with respect to these teachings. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellant traverses the examiner’s comments concerning the “stationary queue”
and that the “stationary queue” is described in the specification. (Brief at page 14.)
While we find a discussion of the “stationary queue” in the specification, we do not find
an explicit definition which would require reading the structure or acts into independent
claim 1. Therefore, we interpret this limitation using it ordinary meaning.
As our reviewing court 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. 123 S.Ct. 2230 (2003). Moreover, the intrinsic record also must be
examined in every case to determine whether the presumption of ordinary and
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007