Appeal 2007-0437
Application 09/982,224
Monday, June 25, 2007. The above-noted panel only recently received this
request for decision.
Each of independent claims 1, 12, 20, 31, 39, and 50 in some manner
recites a so-called “heartbeat command regularly transmitted at a defined
interval.” The scope of meaning attributed to the word “defined” has not
been defined in the claims. Contrary to what has been alluded to in the
Request for Rehearing, no fixed time interval is required by this quoted
limitation.
With respect to Appellants’ urgings at page 2 of the Request, we are
unpersuaded of the patentability of the independent claims reciting the
quoted feature. No other claimed limitation is argued in the Request. The
mere fact that Brown’s commands, as alleged, may all be based on user
initiated actions does not detract from their applicability to meeting the
broadly defined quoted feature. Even as recognized that the user may
initiate a save command of any edits, any time the user does so becomes a
regularly transmitted command because edits are regularly saved. It is
considered to be a defined interval because it occurs at the end of the user’s
determination that an edit is complete.
Moreover, the source of the generated heartbeat command that is
regularly transmitted at defined intervals is not recited in the independent
claims, thus making it only a passively recited feature. As such, the user is
perfectly capable of meeting the limitation since no claimed element or
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013