Appeal No. 2006-0533
Application 09/838,420
Continuing our discussion with respect to claim 11, the
nature of the arguments presented by appellants at page 7 of the
principal Brief on appeal lead us to further conclude that the
use of the terms “computer-usable medium” is intended by
appellants to have no limit of the concepts of which the artisan
may construe these terms. Therefore, the arguments made by
appellants to prove or urge definiteness in fact argue that
claim 11 is indefinite. Because the arguments in the Brief and
Reply Brief intend to significantly expand upon the scope of the
nature of the use of the conventional meaning of “computer-usable
medium” with respect to figure 1A in the disclosed invention well
beyond the mass storage element 107 and the main memory 102, the
arguments as well in the Reply Brief are unpersuasive of
definiteness. The use of the terms “computer-usable medium” are
intended to have such a broad meaning by appellants that the
metes and bounds of claim 11 is not reasonably determinable in
the context of an independent claim or in the context of being
dependent upon independent claim 1. Since there are no computer
readable instructions per se that are disclosed, the scope of
meaning to be attributed to these terms in claim 11 itself is
also not determinable.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007