Appeal 2006-2828
Application 09/683,995
the network, in Budge these functionalities are divided
into two separate programs: the video-email recorder 210
and the e-mail client 270. Furthermore, where the
invention of claim 1 is limited to a single program, an
e-mail messaging program, both receiving the message
over the network and playing back the media, in Budge
these functionalities are divided into two separate
programs: the e-mail client 270 and the video-email
player 220. (Br. 5, emphasis in original).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner maintains that claim 1 reads
on the Budge reference. In particular, the Examiner reads the claimed first
and second clients on “sending sub-system 2,” and “receiving sub-system
4,” respectively (Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 16-42). The Examiner reads the claimed
“first email messaging program” on “VIDEO E-MAIL SOFTWARE 50”
(Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 38-42). The Examiner reads the claimed “second email
messaging program” on “VIDEO E-MAIL PLAYER 220” (Fig. 2B, col. 4,
ll. 31-36 and 44-49). The Examiner reads the claimed “network” on
“communication link 8” (Fig. 1, col. 3, l. 19). The Examiner thus concludes
that Budge anticipates the claimed invention (Answer 12-13).
“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). The
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must also be consistent with
the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright,
165 F.3d 1353, 1358, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
When we construe instant claim 1 in accordance with the broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, we conclude that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013