Appeal No. 95-4629
Application 07/831,953
narrowing specification into certain portions of the claimed
invention without invoking In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29
USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (in banc) and 35 U.S.C. § 112,
sixth paragraph. Our opinion points out that the claims are
much broader than a reasonable view of the corresponding
disclosure, that is, of what appellant regards as his own
invention as he disclosed it. The dissent would appear to
burden appellant with a narrow interpretation of the claims
that the record does not reflect appellant desires to invoke.
The dissent’s reference to the correction means operating
where the user intentionally wishes to have the icon image
protrude from the “visible area of the display” is only
reflective of the “second” aspect of the disclosed invention
and the subject matter of claims 5 to 9 and not of claims 1 to
4. The “visible area of the display” is not defined in the
claims as the edge of the display device as the dissent seems
to say, and it is also not recited as a means.
In view of the foregoing, the examiner's rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed as is
15
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007