Appeal No. 2006-1785 Page 7
Application No. 10/768,827
The examiner asserts that the emulating system shown in fig. 2 is the
system connected to client application 206 that performs emulation, noting
that database server 202 and agent 214 clearly show an emulating system
[id.]. The examiner asserts that there is communication between the
application and the emulation system [answer, page 16; see also fig. 2(a)
and 2(b), in particular IPC 208)].
“During patent examination, the pending claims must be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." In re
Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Claim
language is given its plain, ordinary, or accustomed meaning to one of
ordinary skill in the relevant art, unless the applicant has imparted a novel
meaning to the language. Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d
1313, 1325, 63 USPQ2d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In the instant case,
we find that appellants’ claimed “emulating system” is properly construed
broadly in light of the plain, ordinary, and accustomed meaning of the term
“emulator” [claim 1]. We note that this broad construction finds support
within the instant specification at page 7, lines 25 and 26: “Emulator 16 and
interface 18 are not described in detail herein as a skilled person in the art
would know how they could be implemented,” [emphasis added]. In
particular, we find that the substitute routines that imitate the function of
Bodamer’s external routines [col. 8, lines 40-42] clearly meet the plain
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007