Appeal No. 1997-1665 Page 8
Application No. 08/289,134
12, and 13 stand or fall together as a group.” (Appeal Br. at
6.) We accordingly select claim 1 to represent the group.
The appellants make four arguments. First, they argue,
“the proposed combination of prior art teachings fails to
disclose or suggest the claimed 'means for detecting a feature
portion of said coordinate data which corresponds to a set of
one or more characteristics of said input handwriting stored
in said input handwriting storing means.'" (Appeal Br. at 9.)
They add, "Capps teaches nothing about comparing a feature
portion of coordinate data with data in a gesture data base
and certainly fails to teach 'means for determining' the
result of any such comparison." (Id. at 13.)
“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)(citing In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Here,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007