Appeal No. 96-1396
Application 08/176,335
[answer, pages 2-3].
Appellants argue that the criticized terms would be clear to
the person skilled in the art when the claims are read in
light of the specification [brief, pages 7-9].
The general rule is that a claim must set out and
circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity when read in light of the
disclosure as it would be by the artisan. In re Moore, 439
F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971). Acceptability
of the claim language depends on whether one of ordinary skill
in the art would understand what is claimed in light of the
specification. Seattle Box Co., v. Industrial Crating &
Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
The examiner appears to misapprehend the meaning of
what is recited in the independent claims. The fact that an
actionable object is operable independently of the menu bar
icon does not preclude it also being operable in response to
the menu bar icon. For example, in figure 2 of this
application, the actionable object "March Reports" is operable
by either selecting icon 250, which is independent of the menu
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007