Appeal No. 1998-2983
Application No. 08/481,230
Area 114 contains controls associated with the window which directs the action of the
application.
With respect to the associated controls in the second window, the language of
claim 1 does not require that any associated control be present nor that the control be
within the window. We note that any independent window would have some control
associated therewith to allow the window to be closed and/or resized, if available.
Here, from the teaching of Maruo, the window areas are set in size, due to the
structured configuration of the display area. But, if the windows were to include
independent configurability, then there would have been a required function to control the
size along with the ability to close each window. Here, we disagree with appellants that the
language of claim 1 requires associated control with each of the two windows and further
that the language of claim 1 does not require that the “size and location of the [second]
window . . . be changed.” (See brief at page 13.)
Here, we note that appellants are relying on material within the specification for
patentability. We disagree with appellants’ use of a definition to incorporate additional
substantive limitations as to the functionality of the claimed invention as to the requirement
of associated controls and the ability to resize the window. Furthermore, this is especially
problematic when one window within the claim explicitly recites the presence of a control
region within the window and one window is silent as to a control region or any control
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007