Appeal No. 95-5021
Application 07/929,082
The examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art:
Southerton, Programmer's Guide to Presentation manager, "Control Windows", Chapter
7, pages 205-213 (1989).
Unruh, Data Based Advisor, "Zip/Clip", Vol. 8, No. 12, p. 108 (1990).
OPINION
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Unruh
in view of Southerton. We reverse for the reasons given by Appellants amplified as
follows.
The examiner’s rejection relies on interpreting the claims as “sufficiently broad to
read on any data base look up function based on and returning multiple fields.” Examiner’s
Answer at 4. As for the claim term “object,” the examiner states that “any combination of
related pieces of code and data may be considered an object.” Examiner’s Answer at 7.
According to the examiner, the claim term “complex object,” refers to an object that is
complicated. Examiner’s Answer at 5.
Claims undergoing examination are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, and limitations appearing in the specification are not to
be read into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir.
1985). Therefore, the interpretation must be both “reasonable” and “consistent with the
specification.” The examiner’s interpretation is neither.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007