Appeal No. 2005-2338
Application No. 09/754,001
eTrade etc. However as explained in the background section of the
application, prior art services like AOL, Yahoo, MSN, eTrade etc. do not
employ GUID to uniquely identify users. Each of these prior art services
merely require identifiers that are unique within their respective universes.
A user can register with AOL, Yahoo etc[.] using the same identifier,
provided it is not already in use by others in each of the respective
services. However, it is well known, some of the popular user identifiers,
like “Hot Dude” identifies different users in different services, as a first user
registers “Hot Dude” with AOL first, and another user registers “Hot Dude”
with Yahoo first. In sum, prior art services DO NOT use globally unique
user identifiers, they merely require user identifiers that are unique in their
respective domains or universes.
Here, Teper’s domain or universe is trusted brokering services, an
improvement over brokering services offered by Charles Schwabe [sic
Schwab], Meryll [sic Merrill] Lynch, and the like. Nothing in Teper
suggests that Teper has a need to require user id uniqueness beyond
Teper’s own domain. In fact, nothing in Teper suggests that Teper’s user
identifier is anything but a conventional user identifier employed by broker
services of the Charles Schwabe [sic Schwab], Meryll [sic Merrill] Lynch,
and the like.
The examiner states on page 3 of the answer that GUID reads on Teper’s
“unique ID”.
We concur with the examiner and we decline to use the extrinsic definition
for GUID appellants provide in determining the scope of claim 1. In analyzing the
scope of the claim, office personnel must rely on appellants’ 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
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007