Appeal No. 1998-2983
Application No. 08/481,230
accustomed meaning, would not require a “window” to have any specific associated
controls or control area without explicit recitation thereof.
In our view, to require the association of control functions with each window would
be paramount to reading that limitation from the specification into the claim in view of the
ordinary and accustomed meaning of the term “window.” Appellants further argue that both
the first and second windows must have associated controls and have the ability to be
resized by the user. (See brief at page 13.) We disagree with appellants, as discussed
above.
With respect to the teachings and suggestions in Maruo, appellants again rely
solely upon the definition of “window” in the specification to distinguish the claimed
invention as recited in claim 1. (See brief at page 14.) We disagree with appellants.
Appellants further argue that the window is required to have the functionality that “the
size and location of the window on the display screen can also be changed by the
user of the computer.” (See brief at page 13.) We find no support for this limitation in the
express language of claim 1. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, we note that Figure 6 shows the display menus according to an
embodiment of the invention. We note that the display of Maruo has areas:
111- common display, 112- other party dynamic picture area, 113- own dynamic picture
area, and 114- meeting progress menu display area. (See Maruo at col. 10, lines 23-29.)
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007