Appeal No. 2004-1764 Page 5
Application No. 08/704,400
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). In answering the question, "[t]he 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 34 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "upon an initial
application of force on said user-interface by the user, the actual displacement speed of
the cursor is variable within a first speed range, and . . . upon a predetermined time
interval after the initial application of force on said user-interface by the user, the actual
displacement speed of the cursor is variable within a second speed range." Similarly,
claim 40 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "an actual displacement speed
of the cursor as represented by said display is variable within a first speed range
when a total generation of timing signals is less than a pre-specified number, and the
actual displacement speed of the cursor is variable within a second speed range when
the total generation of timing signals is equal to or greater than the pre-specified
number." Considering these limitations, claims 24 and 40 require displacing a cursor
within a range of speed during a predetermined interval of time and, after the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007