Appeal No. 2005-2744
Application No. 09/849,979
Appellants assert that Van Dusen teaches an e-mail text message and though
Van Dusen’s text message might be similar to that enclosed in an electronic
greeting card, the similarity does not make the e-mail an electronic greeting card.
(Brief page 10). Appellants present similar arguments on page 3 through 6 of the
reply brief.
The examiner in response argues, on page 3 of the answer, that
appellants’ specification “provides that ‘[t]he e-card site sends the e-card to the
recipient via e-mail. As discussed above, the e-mail may be the entire e-
card…’(specification, p. 67 lines 13-15, emphasis added. Van Dusen’s ‘email
based gift certificate’ (col. 6, lines 8-9) therefore teaches Applicant’s electronic
greeting card.”
We concur with the examiner’s claim interpretation. Claims will be given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and
limitations appearing in the specification will not be read into the claims. In re
Etter 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In analyzing the
scope of the claim, office personnel must rely on the appellants’ disclosure to
properly determine the meaning of the terms used in the claims. Markman v.
Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 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