Appeal No. 97-1223 Page 13
Application No. 08/147,143
located with respect to subjects in an electronic book.
(Spec. at 15.) Neither Capps, Soviero, nor Slate suggests
such an indicator. For the foregoing reasons, the examiner
failed to show the references would have suggested displaying
a browser as in independent claim 14 and its dependent claims
15-18 and 40. Accordingly, we find the examiner’s rejection
of these claims does not amount to a prima facie case of
obviousness. Because the examiner has not established a prima
facie case, the rejection of claims 14-18 and 40 is improper.
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 14-18 and 40
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection of Claims 31 and 35-38
We begin our consideration of the obviousness of claims
31 and 35-38 by recalling that during patent examination,
pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation. Limitations from the specification are not to
be read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Prater, 415
F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969). With this in
mind, we address the appellants’ arguments.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007