Appeal No. 2006-1790
Application No. 10/042,030
art, the attribute is modified “in response to the user being authenticated,” even though
we realize this is not what is intended by appellants. Still, the claim language must be
given its broadest, yet reasonable, interpretation. Claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation during prosecution, and the scope of the claim cannot be
narrowed by reading disclosed limitations into the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ
541, 550 (CCPA 1969). “An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion
claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can
uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative
process.” Zletz, 893 F.2d at 321, 13 USPQ2d at 1322.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§103.
With regard to claim 24, the examiner explains, at pages 10-13 of the answer,
why it would have been obvious to modify a conventional computer using a Windows 98
operating system with the features of IE, version 5.0 in order to retrieve a document
from the Internet and enhance the view of the document corresponding to user
preferences. The examiner’s rationale appears reasonable to us and we adopt the
reasoning therein.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007