Appeal 2007-2110
Application 10/223,408
statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an
argument for separate patentability of the claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii) (2006).
As such, we select claim 1 as the representative claim and the remaining claims 2-6
and 21-23 stand or fall together with claim 1.
Appellants contend that “there is no teaching or suggestion in MORENO, or
any other document of record, of receiving a specification of the locker to which
the article is to be delivered” (Appeal Br. 12). More specifically, Appellants
contend that Moreno fails to disclose receiving a specification of the locker to
which the article is to be delivered because Moreno “merely discloses assigning a
locker to a potential delivery” (Appeal Br. 13). We disagree.
In order to determine the patentability of claim 1 over the cited prior art, the
claim must be interpreted to ascertain its proper scope and/or meaning. In
interpreting claim language, we apply the broadest reasonable meaning of the
words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill
in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
otherwise that may be afforded by the written description. See In re Morris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also In re Sneed,
710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). We decline to
unnecessarily import examples from the Specification into the claims. See
Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d
1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be
aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to
import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013