Appeal No. 2005-2744
Application No. 09/849,979
America Inc v. Kee-Vet Laboratories Inc. , 887 F.2d 1050, 1053, 12 USPQ2d
1474, 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Initially, we note appellants’ arguments rely on extrinsic evidence such as
the TechEncyclopedia, to provide guidance as to how to interpret the limitation of
an “electronic greeting card”. We decline to adopt the definition from
TechEncylopedia as there is no date associated with the definition so we are
unable to ascertain if the definition was applicable as of the filing date of the
application. Additionally, our reviewing court has stated that they view “extrinsic
evidence in general as less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in
determining how to read claim terms, for several reasons. First, extrinsic
evidence by definition is not part of the patent and does not have the
specification’s virtue of being created at the time of patent prosecution for the
purpose of explaining the patent’s scope and meaning” Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
415 F.3d 1303, 1308 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, the
definition in TechEncylopedia does not define what is and what is not an e-card.
The definition only identifies that other features in addition to text that are allowed
to be used, and as appellants’ disclosure identifies that the electronic greeting
card can be the e-mail message itself, it follows that the format of an e-mail
message also allows the use of the additional features.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007