Appeal No. 2004-0434
Application No. 09/836,686
specification shows a system at figures 1, 3, and 6, with
portable devices for transferring files. Appellant argues that
"portable device" should be narrowly defined so as to preclude
Abecassis' multimedia player of his figure 1 and Berstis'
computers, servers, and components (items 10, 20, 26a, 26b, 26c,
40, 24, 26, and 44) in Berstis' figures 1, 3, and 4 from being
"portable devices."
Our reviewing court states in In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) that "claims must be
interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow." Our
reviewing court further 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, 538 U.S. 1058 (2003).
Upon our review of Appellant's specification, we fail to
find any definition of the term "portable" that is different from
the ordinary meaning. We find the ordinary meaning of the term
"portable" is best found in the dictionary. We note that the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007