Appeal No. 2006-1589
Application No. 10/082,912
therefore agree with the examiner that a broad but reasonable interpretation of the claimed
“onboard system” fairly reads upon Kiel’s handheld client communication device 102 [Kiel, Fig.
1, ¶¶0034, 0036]. We further note that CPU 114 comprises a system located onboard handheld
client communication device 102 and that client communication device 102 is a portable device
[id., emphasis added].
Appellants appear to be arguing that the portable networking device definition found in
the specification (discussed supra) requires, or at least implies, that the claimed “onboard
system” must be contained in a mobile vehicle [brief, page 12, see also specification, page 5,
lines 18-20, emphasis added]. We find that appellants are improperly imputing a specific
meaning to one claim term (“onboard system”) by relying upon a definition found in the
specification for an entirely different claim term (“portable networking device”) [instant claim
1]. We note that the instant specification is silent regarding an express or implied definition that
disavows or disclaims the plain, ordinary and customary meaning associated with the phrase
onboard system [emphasis added]. We further note that the instant claims are silent with respect
to any recitation of a mobile vehicle.
The examiner contends that Kiel’s client communication device can be contained in a
mobile vehicle [answer, page 5]. We agree with the examiner that an artisan reading the Kiel
reference would readily understand that portable phones are carried by people who travel
onboard trains, planes, and automobiles, and also that this type of application is a common
intended use or function for the portable phone disclosed by Kiel [emphasis added].
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007