Appeal No. 2003-1031 Page 9
Application No. 09/050,841
2. Client and Server
The examiner finds, "Davis discloses an intermediary application . . . see Col. 4,
lines 37-40 and lines 55-58." (Examiner's Answer at 3.) The appellants argue, "[i]n
appellants' invention, the intermediary application acts as a middleman between a client
and a server. In comparison, in Davis et al., the tracking program described therein is
not disposed between a client and a server to receive transmissions exchanged
between the client and the server." (Supp. Appeal Br. at 11-12.)
"[T]he Board must give claims their broadest reasonable construction. . . ." In re
Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000)."[L]imitations are
not to be read into the claims from the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Here, because the claim does not require
"act[ing] as a middleman between a client and a server," (Supp. Appeal Br. at 11-12),
we are unpersuaded by the appellants' argument. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of
claim 1 and of claims 2-7, 22-27, and 42-46, which fall therewith.
The appellants further argue, "[c]laims 9 & 29, which depend from independent
claims 1 & 22 are believed patentable for the same reasons discussed above in
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007