Appeal No. 96-4063
Application 08/389,087
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this appeal, we have carefully considered
appellants’ specification and claims, the applied patents, the respective viewpoints of appellants and the
examiner, and all other evidence of record. As a consequence of our review, we find that we are in
general agreement with appellants (Brief, pages 6 and 10) that the handheld computing unit having an
infrared interface (see claims 56, 61, 70, 75, and 84 on appeal) is neither taught nor would have been
suggested by the applied references. However, we cannot agree with appellants (Brief, pages 6 to 9)
that the collective teachings of Robinson, Mitchell, and Rabinowitz fail to teach or suggest a handheld
computing unit having a basic communication link as so broadly set forth in appellants’ independent
claims 55 and 69 on appeal. For the reasons which follow, we will sustain the decisions of the
examiner rejecting claims 55, 57 to 60, 62 to 69, 71 to 74, 76 to 83, and 85 to 88 on appeal; and we
will reverse the decisions of the examiner rejecting claims 56, 61, 70, 75, and 84 on appeal.
Section 103 Rejection of Claims 55, 57 to 60, 62 to 69, 71 to 74, 76 to 83, and 85 to 88
At the outset, we note that claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation during
prosecution. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d
1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332, 216 USPQ
1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007