Appeal No. 1997-1349
Application 08/520,629
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and limitations appearing in the specification
are not to be read into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852,
858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
We note that Appellants’ claim 24 recites
. . . said display device being adjustable between a
closed position in which the display device covers the
keyboard with said reverse surface and an open position in
which the keyboard is uncovered and the display device is
positioned rearwardly of the keyboard at a viewing angle
(emphasis added).
We fail to find that Appellants’ claim 24 requires any
particular angle or direction for the display surface with
respect to the keyboard in its open position. Appellants
specifically recite a closed position for the computer where
the display covers the keyboard in the housing with its reverse
surface. Nevertheless, Appellants define the open position
merely by reciting that the keyboard is uncovered and the
display is at a viewing angle positioned on the back portion of
the keyboard. Thus, Appellants’ claim 24 does not preclude an
open position with the display at a viewing angle while the
viewing surface is positioned away from the keyboard.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007