Appeal No. 96-4063
Application 08/389,087
1969). It is improper to narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly reading in disclosed limitations from
the specification which have no express basis in the claims. See In re Morris, supra; see also MPEP §
2111.
Independent claims 55 and 69 on appeal are broadly directed to a portable handheld
computing unit (17 in Figure 1 of the specification) which has a processor (31), a boot ROM (32), an
I/O ROM (34), at least one I/O port and a communication interface (40, 42, and/or 43), a RAM (33),
a display (36) and display touch scanner (39), and an optical disk interface (40) (Figure 4).
We find that the broad language of independent claims 55 and 69 is met by the combination of
applied references to Robinson, Mitchell, and Rabinowitz. We are in general agreement with the
examiner (Answer, pages 4 to 6) that the collective teachings of Robinson, Mitchell, and Rabinowitz
would have taught or suggested all of the salient features of appellants’ portable handheld computing
unit recited in independent claims 55 and 69, and their corresponding dependent claims.
We note that although appellants’ arguments are presented in relation to a communications link
being of the wireless or "infrared" type, as disclosed in detail in the specification, independent claims 55
and 69 and their corresponding dependent claims 57 to 60, 62 to 68, 71 to 74, 76 to 83, and 85 to 88
merely call for a "communication interface." See claim 55, line 6 and claim 69, line 6 on appeal.
Robinson (pages 36, column 1, line 7) teaches a communication interface as does Mitchell (column 1,
lines 5 to 52). We note that only claims 56, 61, 70, 75, and 84 on appeal specifically require that the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007