Appeal No. 2004-2043
Application 09/312,919
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 Appellants’ specification, we fail to
find any definition of the term “general purpose” that is
contradictory to the ordinary meaning. Therefore, we find the
ordinary meaning of the term “general purpose” is best found in
the dictionary. We note that the definition most suitable for
“general purpose” is capable of “performing any computational
task”, i.e. programmable.2 We also find that Appellants’
statement that “general purpose” refers to “not dedicated . . .
exclusively” is not contradictory to “programmability.”
We appreciate the Examiner’s position that “general purpose”
is only a multi-functional device and programmability is not
required. However, we find that the claim language does require
the device to be programmable. An example of a general-purpose
personal digital assistant device that is “programmable” can be
found in U.S. Patent 4,534,012 to Yokozawa. At column 12, lines
41-51 of Yokozawa teach that his device (see figure 10) is both
2 Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, 1991, page 160. See the
definition of “general-purpose computer.”
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007