Appeal No. 2006-1785 Page 10
Application No. 10/768,827
meaning of a disputed term’ and that the specification ‘acts as a dictionary
when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it defines terms
by implication.’ ” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d at 1321, 75 USPQ2d at
1332 (internal citations omitted). In the instant case, we note that
appellants have expressly defined the term “request” in the instant
specification as broadly encompassing “a communication received from a
computer application by a computing system” [page 6, lines 3 and 4]. We
further note that appellants have expressly defined the term “response” in
the specification as broadly encompassing “a communication to a computer
application from a computing system” [page 6, lines 5 and 6]. We note that
Bodamer explicitly discloses commands that are translated into “lower level
requests” that are handled by database server 202 with communication
effected by IPC mechanism 208 [col. 7, lines 9-15, emphasis added]. We
further note that Bodamer discloses that database server 202 responds to
the requests by executing instructions for causing the requested operations
to be performed [col. 7, lines 19-21]. Significantly, we note that Bodamer
explicitly discloses that “[t]he results of the database server 202 operation
are communicated back to the client process 206 via IPC mechanism 208”
[col. 7, lines 27-30, emphasis added]. We also note that database server
202 executes external routines [col. 7, lines 34 and 35] that in one
embodiment are replaced by substitute routines that are generated based on
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007