Appeal No. 2004-2090
Application No. 09/540,391
Almási do not provide the suggestion to modify the use of the program Microsoft
Project to connect or link product features with tasks as is claimed.
We agree. Claim 15 includes the limitation “entering a description of each
of said product features … defining a plurality of tasks, wherein each of said
tasks is associated with one of said product features, the plurality of tasks being
grouped into task types.” In analyzing the scope of the claim, office personnel
must rely on the appellant’s disclosure to properly determine the meaning of the
terms used in the claims. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F3d
967, 980, 34 USPQ2d 1321, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “[I]nterpreting what is meant
by a word in a claim ‘is not to be confused with adding an extraneous limitation
appearing in the specification, which is improper.’” (emphasis original) In re
Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1348, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1205,
(Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Intervet America Inc v. Kee-Vet Laboratories Inc. 12
USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). “[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). “Moreover, the intrinsic record also
must be examined in every case to determine whether the presumption of
ordinary and customary meaning is rebutted.” (citation omitted). “Indeed, the
intrinsic record may show that the specification uses the words in a manner
clearly inconsistent with the ordinary meaning reflected, for example, in a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007