Appeal No. 2003-1031 Page 10
Application No. 09/050,841
connection with the Group I claims." (Supp. Appeal Br. at 16.) Having been
unpersuaded by those reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 9 and 29.
3. Proprietary Protocol
The examiner asserts, "Rosenberg also discloses the claimed method wherein
said non-cooperating domains donot [sic] sharea [sic] proprietary protocol (see . . .
page 4, lines 18-27, page 7, lines 1-8 and lines 20-23, please note that the fact that the
first domain and the second domain are non-cooperating domains, and having no
knowledge of one another, therefore, do not share a proprietary protocol)." (Examiner's
Answer at 4.) The appellants argue, "[i]n Rosenberg, the domains . . . communicate a
proprietary protocol between one another. . . . The proprietary protocol consists of
generating, distributing, understanding and using, with a shared database, the unique
identifier value." (Supp. Appeal Br. at 20.)
a. Claim Construction
"The general rule is, of course, that terms in the claim are to be given their
ordinary and accustomed meaning." Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp.,
175 F.3d 985, 989, 50 USPQ2d 1607, 1610 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Renishaw PLC v.
Marposs Societa Per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249, 48 USPQ2d 1117, 1121 (Fed. Cir.
1998); York Prods., Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1572, 40
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007