Appeal No. 2006-0430 Page 7
Application No. 09/859,425
addressed the cited teachings of Tso but have instead discussed other teachings of
Chan. We find such a discussion immaterial to the examiner's reliance on Tso.
B. TRANSLATING TEXTUAL AND GRAPHICAL ELEMENTS
The examiner finds, "Tso teaches a skeleton determining circuit for determining
at least one skeleton content elements of a received content portion in fig. 3, col. 3
line 31 - col. 4 line 37, and col. 8 lines 41-50." (Examiner's Answer at 4.) The
appellants argue, "because the bit-mapped and outline formats of Chan are only
information related to a font, neither of the formats provide a graphical content element,
as recited in the independent claims." (Reply Br. at 3.) They also argue, "Nowhere
does Chan disclose using both formats. . . ." (Id. at 2.)
1. Claim Construction
"[T]he PTO gives claims their 'broadest reasonable interpretation.'" In re Bigio,
381 F.3d 1320, 1324, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Here, all the independent
claims recite in pertinent part the following limitations: "the at least one skeleton content
element textual content elements include graphical content elements and textual
content elements. . . ." (Emphasis added.) Giving the independent claims their
broadest, reasonable construction, we interpret the limitations to recite translating plural
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007