Appeal No. 2005-0871
Application 09/248,736
are saved in that manner (answer, pages 10-11). The examiner
argues that the appellants’ disclosure that clicking on “OK”
locks in the values (specification, page 11, lines 22-23;
page 14, lines 17-18) indicates that the selection criteria are
retained in the computer’s temporary memory but are not saved in
permanent memory (answer, page 11). As stated in Hormone
Research Foundation Inc. v. Genentech Inc., 904 F.2d 1558, 1563,
15 USPQ2d 1039, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 1990), “[i]t is a well-
established axiom in patent law that a patentee is free to be his
or her own lexicographer [citation omitted], and thus may use
terms in a manner contrary to or inconsistent with one or more of
their ordinary meanings. For this reason, an analysis of the
specification and prosecution history is important to proper
claim construction.” The examiner has not analyzed the
specification and prosecution history and explained why they
indicate that the appellants’ claim term “saving” is to be
interpreted as limited to saving in permanent memory.
The examiner argues that the appellants do not disclose that
their table filter is saved (answer, pages 11-12). What the
appellants’ claims require is that the filter and the specified
selection criteria are saved. Such saving is indicated by the
above-discussed portions of pages 11 and 14 of the appellants’
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007