Appeal No. 1997-1584
Application No. 08/353,375
and that claim language should be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
skill in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). 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), citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320,
1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Although Appellants are correct that
Saki’s page selection procedure involves two steps (i.e.,
approximate page selection followed by sequential scrolling to
select the intended page), there is nothing in the language of
appealed claim 1 that limits the selection procedure to a
single step.
In view of the above discussion, it is our view that the
Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
representative independent claim 1 remains unrebutted by any
convincing arguments offered by Appellants. Accordingly, the
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is sustained.
Since, as noted above, Appellants have grouped claims 1-24 as
standing or falling together, claims 2-24 fall with claim 1 in
accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7). Thus, it follows that
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007