Appeal No. 97-1656 Page 8
Application No. 08/314,26
screen display devices independently displays in each and
every block of plural blocks of display data.” (Id. at 2.)
The examiner remarks that the response clarifies the
claim language such that it “should be interpreted as each of
the on screen display devices independently displays data in a
single block of the plural blocks.” (Paper No. 12.) We find
the remark to be an admission that one skilled in the art
would understand the bounds of the claim when read in light of
the specification. We demand no more. Therefore, we reverse
the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Novelty of Claims 1 and 2
We begin our consideration of the novelty of claims 1 and
2 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
appellant’s arguments.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007