Appeal No. 2004-1224
Application No. 09/532,379
Exhibit A), we need not rely on this extrinsic evidence when
intrinsic evidence is readily available. The examiner asserts
that the terminology used in appellant’s definition (“matching”
creates a list of characteristics from the characteristics
“common” to both points of view or sets of data) is not present
in the specification or claims (Answer, page 4). Contrary to the
examiner’s assertion, we find that appellant has adequately
explained and defined “matching” in the specification (see also
claim 4 on appeal). As stated on page 5, ll. 2-5, of the
specification, “the internal organizational data and the external
organizational data is matched to create a list of common
critical characteristics” (underlining added). As further
explained in the specification (page 8, l. 27-page 9, l. 3),
“[o]nce the matches are made between the elements of the internal
organizational data and the external organizational data, a
preliminary list is created where the preliminary list includes
the common critical design, manufacturing and performance
characteristics” (underlining added). Accordingly, it would have
been clear to one of ordinary skill in this art, from appellant’s
specification, that any step of “matching” would necessitate
comparing two lists of elements or sets of data to create a new
list of common elements or data. Therefore one of ordinary skill
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007