Appeal 2007-1305
Application 09/725,394
1 the user is authorized. (Fucarile, col. 6, l. 38 – col. 7, l. 5; col. 8, l. 37 –
2 col. 9, l. 22).
3 17. Because the data in Fucarile is sent from a server to a separate user’s
4 computer, the data is disintegrated on the server for transmission as a bit
5 stream over the network and integrated back into a record on the user’s
6 computer, thus, the data, including the information record and the
7 embedded license form, are brought into being, i.e., generated, and
8 combined.
9
10 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
11 Claim Construction
12 We begin with the language of the claims. The general rule is that terms in
13 the claim are to be given their ordinary and accustomed meaning. Johnson
14 Worldwide Assocs. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 989, 50 USPQ2d 1607, 1610
15 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In the USPTO, claims are construed giving their broadest
16 reasonable interpretation.
17 [T]he Board is required to use a different standard for construing
18 claims than that used by district courts. We have held that it is error
19 for the Board to “appl[y] the mode of claim interpretation that is used
20 by courts in litigation, when interpreting the claims of issued patents
21 in connection with determinations of infringement and validity.” In re
22 Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320[, 1322] (Fed. Cir. 1989);
23 accord In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed.
24 Cir. 1997) (“It would be inconsistent with the role assigned to the
25 PTO in issuing a patent to require it to interpret claims in the same
26 manner as judges who, post-issuance, operate under the assumption
27 the patent is valid.”). Instead, as we explained above, the PTO is
28 obligated to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation
29 during examination.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013