Appeal 2006-3369
Application 10/224,309
certify compliance with the one or more policies [policy
materials]” (Br. 11). [Emphasis added.]
2. Examiner reads the limitation underlined above on Paragraph 56 of
Gullotta, which describes an example of how the computing
system of Gullotta automatically sets up (“schedules”)
notifications (“reminders”) for the delivery of “soft” resources.
The Examiner reads the Appellant’s claimed computing
environment scheduling the reminder for the person to certify
compliance with the policy materials as being anticipated by
Gullotta’s computer system ordering the delivery for the new user
of the required soft resources that he is entitled to in accordance
with the policy directives.
3. During prosecution, claims are to be given “their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification”
Phillips-v AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ 1321, 1329
(Fed Cir 2005). Appellant argues that for the claim limitation
under discussion, the specification limits the actor receiving the
reminders to the person in the claim, as if it read “reminders to the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013