Appeal 2007-2110
Application 10/223,408
particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a
claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.”) It is Appellant’s
burden to precisely define the invention. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056,
44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claim 1 recites an article delivery method that includes, inter alia, receiving
a specification of said locker to which said article is to be delivered, and outputting
delivery request data including article identification information identifying said
article and locker information indicating said locker. Appellants’ Specification
does not define the term “specification” (Finding of Fact 2). The customary and
ordinary meaning of the term “specification” is a restricting or modifying element,
in other words, a condition, provision, or stipulation (Finding of Fact 1).
Therefore, we find, using the customary meaning of the term specification, the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the “receiving a specification…” step of
claim 1 requires only that some information indicating a requirement or provision
of the locker, for example, a location, size, or need for refrigeration, need be
received. This interpretation is consistent with Appellants’ Specification which
describes a customer specifying an area and place in which the locker is installed
where he/she wants to receive the article and the commerce server receiving this
information about the locker and querying the locker management server about
availability of lockers (Specification 12-13).
As noted by Appellants, column 15, lines 5-8 of Moreno discloses “that once
the order size, locker requirements and estimated time of delivery are determined
by the vendor (Grocery123.com), the information is forwarded to the service
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013