Appeal No. 2003-1614 Page 9
Application No. 09/817,692
1. Claim Construction
"Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). In answering the question, "[c]laims are not interpreted in a vacuum, but are
part of and are read in light of the specification." Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus.,
Inc., 810 F.2d 1113, 1116, 1 USPQ2d 1563, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing Hybritech Inc.
v. Monoclonal Anti-bodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1385, 231 USPQ 81, 94-95 (Fed. Cir.
1986); In re Mattison, 509 F.2d 563, 565, 184 USPQ 484, 486 (CCPA 1975)).
Here, claim 7 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "a menu for
presentation by said program, said menu having a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) list
containing a plurality of URLs, at least some URLs in said list being arranged based at
least in part upon time of day." Claims 13 and 15 recite similar limitations. The
appellant's specification distinguishes "time of day" from "frequency of selection
[and] recency of selection." (Spec. at 4, 25-28.) More specifically, the specification
supports the appellant's assertion that "[t]he phrase time of day is well understood to
refer to a particular time during the day." (Reply Br. at 3.) Reading the limitations in
light of the specification, claims 7, 13, and 15 require arranging URLs into a list based at
least in part upon a particular time during the day.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007