Appeal No. 2006-1785 Page 8
Application No. 10/768,827
meaning definition proffered by the examiner in the answer (i.e., “emulation
is simply one computer, device or program imitating the function of another
computer, device or program.” 1) [answer, page 16, emphasis added]. We
further note that the examiner’s use of extrinsic evidence (i.e., a dictionary
definition) has been properly considered in the context of the intrinsic
evidence (i.e., the plain meaning of the term is consistent with and does not
contradict the instant specification). See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
1303, 1319, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Therefore,
we agree with the examiner that Bodamer teaches an emulation system
even though Bodamer does not use the literal term “emulator.” Accordingly,
we conclude that the plain meaning of the recited term “emulating system,”
(i.e., a program imitating the function of another computer, device or
program) broadly reads upon Bodamer’s substitute routines [col. 8, lines 13-
21].
(b) Appellants argue that Bodamer does not disclose “obtaining a
response associated with said request from a data source, said data source
containing a plurality of requests acceptable to said target computing system
and a plurality of responses, each acceptable request being associated with a
response that describes the expected behavior of said target computing
system in response to said acceptable request,” as recited in claim 1 and
1 See “Microsoft Computer Dictionary”, 3rd Edition, Microsoft Press, 1997, page 175.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007