Appeal No. 2003-1031 Page 11
Application No. 09/050,841
USPQ2d 1619, 1622 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). "It is well settled that dictionaries provide
evidence of a claim term's 'ordinary meaning.'" Inverness Med. Switz. GmbH v. Warner
Lambert Co., 309 F.3d 1365, 1369, 64 USPQ2d 1926, 1930 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing
Texas Digital Sys. Inc. v. Telegenix Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1818
(Fed. Cir. 2002); CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366, 62
USPQ2d 1658, 1662 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
Here, claims 51 and 52 recite in pertinent part the following limitations: "said non-
cooperating domains do not share a proprietary protocol." The ordinary meaning of the
term "proprietary" is "something [that] . . . will only work with one vendor's equipment."
Harry Newton, Newton's Telecom Dictionary 603 (14th ed. 1998) (copy attached).
Giving the term its ordinary meaning, the limitations require that the domains do not
share a protocol that will only work with one vendor's equipment.
b. Obviousness Determination
"Argument in the brief does not take the place of evidence in the record." In re
Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) (citing In re Cole, 326
F.2d 769, 773, 140 USPQ 230, 233 (CCPA 1964)). Here, Rosenberg's "server
computers 24A-24N . . . observe a common protocol. . . ." P. 7, ll. 1-2. The appellants
proffer no evidence, however, that the common protocol will only work with one
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007