Appeal No. 95-4356
Application 08/133,821
argument is to point to the up and down arrow icons and icon
45 of Fleming as teaching the multiple icons representing
different objects [answer, page 6]. Appellants have not
responded to this interpretation of the prior art in meeting
the invention of claim 16.
In our view, the major cause of the dispute between
the examiner and appellants results from a difference in claim
interpretation. The examiner is giving the claims what he
considers to be the broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the disclosed invention. The examiner views
each icon of Fleming (sizing icons 29 and icon 45) as being
assigned to an object. The examiner also views each selection
of one of these icons as resulting in a message to open an
object associated with the selected icon [answer, pages 6-7].
Appellants, on the other hand, interpret the claims in light
of the disclosure, and they essentially are reading disclosed
aspects of the invention into the claims. Thus, many of
appellants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with the
invention as interpreted by the examiner or when the claims
are given their broadest reasonable interpretation.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007