Appeal 2007-0275
Application 09/313,278
Claim construction
We note that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has stated:
“[w]hen the applicant states the meaning that the claim terms are intended to
have, the claims are examined with that meaning, in order to achieve a
complete exploration of the applicant's invention and its relation to the prior
art.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
(internal citation omitted). Our reviewing court has further determined that
“the specification is ‘the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed
term,’ and that the specification ‘acts as a dictionary when it expressly
defines terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by implication.”
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1332 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citations omitted).
This reasoning is applicable here. Thus, we agree with Appellant that
a proper construction of the recited “user sophistication” relates to the
degree of knowledge of the user about the specific medical condition in
question as expressed in the context of the user inquiry (claim 39). We find
this construction is fully consistent with the instant Specification at page 9,
line 27, through page 10, line 9.
We note that Douglas discloses a reward point system where users
“earn points by good participation in the program and by reaching certain
milestones” (col. 14, ll. 41-44). The Examiner contends the claimed “user
sophistication” can be broadly but reasonably read on the “reward points” of
Douglas (see Answer 7, ¶ 2). We disagree. The Examiner’s argument
appears to be based on the assumption that users with more reward points
are inherently (i.e., necessarily) more “sophisticated” than users with fewer
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013