Appeal No. 2005-0074
Application No. 09/739,080
Cir. 1995)(the term “comprising” includes the essential elements
recited in the claim but other elements may be added within the
scope of the claim).
Appellants also argue that OrdaCard fails to disclose a web
client as required by claim 33 on appeal, noting that a web
client is conventionally known to operate “as an interface to an
application running on a host on the network and subscribes to
data served thereby.” Brief, page 5.
This argument is not persuasive. Implicit in our review of
the examiner’s anticipation analysis is that the claim must first
have been correctly construed to define the scope and meaning of
each contested limitation. See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d
1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997). During
examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See
In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir.
1995). The specification discloses that a web client can
subscribe to data on a network (specification, line bridging
pages 4-5), or can communicate data objects over a network (page
11), or can view and/or access data being served by a web server
(page 14). As noted by the examiner (Answer, pages 4 and 7),
OrdaCard discloses that a customer uses “Web-UPC r client
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007