Appeal 2007-0342
Application 10/323,932
content,” but argue that the “authoritativeness” in Chakrabarti is a measure
of relevance. According to Appellants, the “authoritativeness” that is
claimed, when read to be consistent with the Specification, is indicative of
whether the information provided in the document is “reliable,” based on
indicia of reliability as exemplified in the Specification (¶¶ 2, 4, 6, 19, and
62, according to Appellants). (Reply Br. 2.)
A reference to another Web page, such as a URL, may contain textual
information. As shown, for example, in the first-listed URL in instant
Figure 13, a URL may contain text such as “brainscience” or “brown.” We
consider the Examiner’s position that a URL may be “textual” contents of a
document to be supported by the record. Further, Appellants point to
nothing in the Specification that redefines the word “authoritativeness” to
distinguish over Chakrabarti’s use of the word. Appellants, instead, use
words not in the claim (e.g., “reliable”) and refer to exemplary embodiments
contained in the Specification. Our reviewing court, however, 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). Unlike proceedings in a
District Court, applicants for patent have the ability (and duty) to amend the
claims, to the extent that support is found in the specification, to avoid the
prior art. “An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims
that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can
uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the
administrative process.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322, 13 USPQ2d 1320,
1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013