Appeal 2007-0251
Application 10/085,310
Brief, but states that processing unit 110 can be “a handheld computer, a
handheld personal digital assistant (PDA), a wireless mobile phone, a pager,
or any other such device.” The specification thus provides a list of four
things that processing unit 110 may be, and then teaches that the unit is not
limited to the four examples.
Our reviewing court has repeatedly warned against confining the
claims to specific embodiments described in the specification. Phillips v.
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(en banc). We are not persuaded that the specification provides a useful
definition for “handheld computing device.”
Appellants submit the alternative argument that the artisan would
have understood the term “handheld computing device” to exclude the
structures described by Moriconi. In support of that view, Appellants refer
to two papers attached to the Brief in the Evidence Appendix.
One piece of evidence appears to be a printed copy from the Web
page “SearchMobileComputing.com,” addressing the word “handheld.” The
paper states that a handheld computer “is a computer that can conveniently
be stored in a pocket (of sufficient size) and used while you’re holding it.”
The next sentence indicates that “handheld computer” and “PDA” are
synonymous -- i.e., “Today’s handheld computers, which are also called
personal digital assistants (PDAs) . . . .” That sentence, however, is contrary
to Appellants’ specification (¶ 22), which teaches that a handheld computer
is distinct from a PDA.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013