Appeal 2007-2533
Application 09/972,434
1 incorporates the appropriate matching ads in the custom page.
2 In doing so, the host accommodates any preferences or
3 constraints indicated in the user profile, at step 32. (italics
4 omitted.)
5
6 (Answer 4.)
7 The Appellants contend that the user profile of Frengut is not comparable to
8 the claimed electronic file that defines a relationship between the user and the
9 seller or buyer. Frengut generates a custom web page for the user according to the
10 "layout and content preferences" indicated in the user profile (Appeal Br. 7:First
11 full ¶). The Appellants contend that a user preference as to layout and content is
12 not necessarily dependent on a defined relationship between the user and the seller
13 or buyer (Appeal Br. 7:Last full ¶).
14 Thus, the only issue under contention is whether Frengut’s user profile is an
15 electronic file defining a relationship between the user and the seller or buyer.
16 First, the Appellants suggest that because the present claim limitation comes
17 from an amendment removing the word “contract” to insert the current claim
18 limitation, that we ought to consider the relationship in the claim to be a
19 contractual relationship (Appeal Br. 5, First full ¶ under Claim 1; Reply Br.
20 2:Second full ¶). We decline the invitation to adopt this construction because the
21 Appellants clearly removed that word from the claim and thus it no longer defines
22 the scope of the claim, and claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
23 interpretation during patent prosecution.
24 The Appellants advance a definition of from Merriam-Webster’s on-line
25 dictionary of “relationship” as a state of affairs existing between those having
26 relations or dealings (Reply Br. 2:Second full ¶). The Appellants failed to provide
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013