Appeal 2006-2723
Application 09/891,264
We have carefully considered the arguments presented by Appellant
in the Request and reviewed our decision. However, those arguments do not
persuade us that our decision was in error in any respect or we have
overlooked any relevant points in reaching our decision that the Examiner
properly rejected claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the applied
prior art.
It is Appellant’s belief “that the Board has adopted an interpretation of
the word ‘contain’ which is broader than what is reasonable in light of the
specification” (Request 2, second ¶). Appellant argues that while a block of
executable code may include a block of executable code, it can “contain” a
block of executable code only if the word “contain” is read to encompass the
concept of “include” (id.). Appellant further asserts that such interpretation,
when used in combination with the word “container,” as recited in the
claims, is unreasonably broad (id.).
We disagree. The ordinary meaning of “contain” as defined by
Merriam-Webster online dictionary1 is:
2 a: to have within: hold b: comprise, include <the bill contains
several new clauses>
(emphasis omitted)
Similarly “contain” is among the synonyms of the word “include:”
1 Merriam-Webster Online, http://m-w.com/, Aug. 16, 2007.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013