Appeal No. 2001-1135
Application 09/002,733
consistent form comprises a same displayed location and format
for the basic field regardless of the selected source.” See page
5 of the brief. Appellant points to Appellant’s specification,
page 4, lines 12 through 17, which support the claim language to
mean that regardless of the selected source information it is
displayed in consistent form so that the displayed information is
predictably in the same location and the same format no matter
what the source. Appellant further points to Appellant’s
specification at page 10, lines 20 through 28 and page 11, line
1, for support that the claim language means that after the user
changes from one source to another, that channel banner maintains
consistent layout and form of the displayed fields.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is the
claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523,
1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “In examining a patent claim, the PTO
must apply the broadest reasonable meaning to the claim language,
taking into account any definitions presented in the
specification.” In re Bass, F.3d , USPQ2d ,
pages 4 and 5 of slip op 02-1046 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 2002). Citing
In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007