Appeal No. 96-3564
Application 08/274,133
lighter (or whiter)." (See answer at page 6, paragraph 2.) With respect to the concurrent
display of both modes on the display, the Examiner states that the admitted prior art
supplies this teaching and the combination would provide the claimed functionality. (See
answer at page 7, paragraphs 3-4.) The Examiner again states that the language of the
claims does not require the background to be the same for both the first and second
modes. We disagree with the Examiner's interpretation of the claim language.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first determine the scope of the
claim. "[T]he name of the game is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47
USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). As pointed out by our reviewing court, claim
language should be read with the "broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their
ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into
account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by
the written description contained in the applicant's specification." In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). From a review
of the specification and appellants' arguments, the meaning of the limitation in claim 26
of "generating background pixel luminance signals of a first luminance level" is understood
to set the background at a set level higher then the second and third levels which will be
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007