Although ultimately inconsequential and therefore probably dicta, this may be a reasonably good case to at least note when faced with an examiner who focuses only on the relationship between claimed devices or components while refusing to give patentable weight to the type of devices or components claimed.
Background / Facts: The patent on appeal here from rejection upon reexamination at the PTO is directed to reducing the amount of data sent from a host to a remote device by filtering out certain information and only providing a summary of the communications that were filtered out. In this regard, the claims recite a summary store to store identifying information received from a “host” via a communications server. The examiner determined that the prior art disclosed the recited “host” because “the ‘host’ does not need to host anything and … the claim only requires [that] the ‘host’ send information to the communication unit via the communication server.”
Issue(s): Whether the plain meaning of “host” requires that it “host something.”
Holding(s): Yes. “We agree with [the patentee] that the plain meaning of ‘host’ requires that the host ‘host something.’” Ultimately, however, the court nevertheless concluded that the prior art “discloses a ‘host’ even under this construction.”