Appeal 2007-2131
Application 10/401,331
unlikely to result in a reliable interpretation of patent claim scope unless
considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence. Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
415 F.3d 1303, 1319, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
The court in Phillips stated: “different dictionaries may contain somewhat
different sets of definitions for the same words. A claim should not rise or
fall based upon the preferences of a particular dictionary editor, or the
court’s independent decision, uninformed by the specification, to rely on one
dictionary rather than another.” Id. at 1322, 75 USPQ2d at 1333. The court
in Phillips reaffirmed its view that the specification “is always highly
relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the
single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Id. at 1315, 75
USPQ2d at 1327 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d
1576, 1582, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). The court in Phillips
further stated “that the specification ‘acts as a dictionary when it expressly
defines terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by implication.’”
Id. at 1321, 75 USPQ2d at 1332 (citations omitted).
This reasoning is applicable here. When we look to the Specification
for context, we find archiving is performed using compression throughout
the disclosure, as follows:
When inspecting content for files to be archived, the archive
mechanism identifies files that were least frequently
and/or least recently accessed. These files are then
compressed into one or more archive files and moved to
archive storage [emphasis added].
(Specification 3: 7-12).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013