Appeal No. 2001-2688
Application No. 08/735,619
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). Claims will be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and
limitation appearing in the specification are not to be read into
the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed.
Cir. 1985).
Appellants' claim 1 recites
[a] method of interactively accessing a database
of selections, each such selection being classifiable
into at least two categories . . . comprising the steps
of:
representing at least a portion of the database
with a geometric object corresponding to a virtual
space having logical coordinates in at least two
dimensions, wherein each selection is assigned to a
point on the logical coordinates in accordance with its
categories.
When viewing this claim in light of the specification which is
directed to a database having logical coordinates in which each
selection is assigned a point on the logical coordinates in
accordance with its categories, we find that the phrase "having
logical coordinates" modifies "the database" in the above
recitation of claim 1. Thereby, Appellants' claim 1 requires a
database "having logical coordinates" in at least two dimensions,
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007