Appeal 2006-2828
Application 09/683,995
the language of the claim is not limited to a single e-mail messaging
program that records media and sends a message (including the media) over
the network, nor is the language of the claim limited to an e-mail messaging
program that receives the message over the network and plays back the
media, as argued by Appellants (see Br. 5).
In contrast, we find the language of the claim merely requires a first
client on which a composing user composes a message and records media,
the first email messaging program sending the message to a receiving user
over the network, and, a second client on which the receiving user receives
the message over the network, the second email messaging program playing
back the media upon the user viewing the message, where the first and
second clients have first and second email messaging programs installed
thereon, respectively.
We note that this broad but reasonable interpretation is fully
consistent with the Specification that discloses, in one embodiment, an
e-mail messaging program that is not integrated with a media player:
Playback can be performed in a number of different manners,
and is not limited to integration with the email messaging
program . . . As another example, the user may be using an
installed email messaging program, but the code that actually
plays back the media may not be part of the program itself. The
playback may be accomplished by a subsidiary program.
(Specification, 8, ¶ 0033, emphasis added).
We conclude that Appellants are arguing limitations from the
Specification. We note that patentability is based upon the claims. “It is the
claims that measure the invention.” SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp.of
America, 775 F.2d 1107, 1121, 227 USPQ 577, 585 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013