Appeal No. 2003-0549 Page 12
Application No. 09/149,408
manipulation of an image of the page." (Reply Br. at 5.) They further argue, "it is clear
from the Coleman disclosure that the modifications are not being made 'free from
changing the original electronic document' as recited in the claims." (Id. at 4.)
a. Claim Construction
"[L]imitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification." In re Van
Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Here, claim 21
recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "change the format of a page, but not
all pages of said copy, by applying, at least . . . rotation of image. . . ." Contrary to the
appellants' arguments, the claim requires neither "reformatting (page rotation) by
manipulation of an image of the page," (Reply Br. at 5), nor "that . . . modifications
are . . . made 'free from changing the original electronic document'. . . ." (Id. at 4.)
Giving the claim its broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations further require
reformatting a page of the copy of the electronic document.
b. Anticipation Determination
As mentioned regarding claims 1, 5-11, 15, 16, and 20, Coleman discloses that
"various system processes may be performed on the current page of a stack," col. 7,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007