Appeal 2006-3331
Application 10/829,797
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness”). However, “the analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would employ.” Id.
ANALYSIS
Claim Interpretation
The Appellant argues that McNeal fails to disclose transmitting personal
identification access information (Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 2-3), and contends that
this phrase should be interpreted narrowly to mean “a secretly protected number”
(Reply Br. 3). We decline to interpret this phrase so narrowly.
Specifically, the Appellant contends that “[p]ersonal identification access
information is not a term of art in the industry and thus has a meaning dependent
upon that [sic] Appellant’s specification” (Reply Br. 3). We determine the scope
of the claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language,
but upon giving claims “their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification” and “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364,
70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We must be careful, however, not to
read a particular embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if
the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See Superguide Corp. v.
DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013