Appeal No. 2004-0870 Page 5
Application No. 09/477,419
1. Claim Construction
"Analysis begins with a key legal question — what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). "The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) must consider all claim limitations
when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art." In re Lowry, 32 F.3d
1579, 1582, 32 USPQ2d 1021, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Gulack, 703 F.2d
1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Here, claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "a user-selectable
mode of operation in which only an active one of the multiple task windows is normally
displayed at a time, and a minimized representation is provided for all non-active task
windows." Claim 30 includes similar limitations. Considering these limitations, claims 1
and 30 require that a user can select and de-select a mode that displays an active task
window and a minimized representation of all non-active task windows.
2. OBVIOUSNESS DETERMINATION
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. "In rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007