Appeal No. 1997-1654 Page 13
Application No. 08/431,307
‘attributes’ functions to achieve an effect within a program
object in a manner reading on Lam's ‘code’, which also
determines properties, or attributes, of a NewWave Office
object.” (Examiner’s Answer at 4-5.) We disagree with the
appellants.
The appellants err by attempting to read limitations from
the specification into the claims. “In the patentability
context, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretations. Moreover, limitations are not to be read
into the claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988
F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(internal citations omitted).
Here, the claims do not recite the limitation of
maintaining only a single copy of the overriding attribute
values. Accordingly, the appellants’ arguments concerning the
limitation are immaterial. Therefore, we affirm the rejection
of claims 26-28, 31-37, and 47. Next, we address the
obviousness of claims 38 and 41-46.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007