Appeal 2007-1315
Application 09/828,437
1 travel agent 606 that booked the package or suboptions of the final
2 option, and to the buyer 604,607, if the buyer's contact information (e.g.,
3 email address) is available. A follow-up daily reconciliation message
4 (e.g., email or fax) is also sent to all vendors at the end of each day re-
5 listing all bookings of suboptions selected as part of a final option made
6 that day as a verification.” (Among, ¶ [0051].)
7
8 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
9 Claim Construction
10 The general rule is that terms in the claim are to be given their ordinary and
11 accustomed meaning. Johnson Worldwide Assocs. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985,
12 989, 50 USPQ2d 1607, 1610 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In the USPTO, claims are
13 construed giving their broadest reasonable interpretation.
14 [T]he Board is required to use a different standard for construing
15 claims than that used by district courts. We have held that it is error
16 for the Board to “appl[y] the mode of claim interpretation that is used
17 by courts in litigation, when interpreting the claims of issued patents
18 in connection with determinations of infringement and validity.” In re
19 Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989); accord
20 In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
21 (“It would be inconsistent with the role assigned to the PTO in issuing
22 a patent to require it to interpret claims in the same manner as judges
23 who, post-issuance, operate under the assumption the patent is
24 valid.”). Instead, as we explained above, the PTO is obligated to give
25 claims their broadest reasonable interpretation during examination.
26 In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827,
27 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013