Appeal No. 1997-2898
Application 08/368,239
Thus, we will consider the claims to stand or fall as per
these argued groups. We will treat claims 1, 4, 6, 8 and 17
as the representative claims for each group.
Appellants argue on page 9 of the brief that Himelstein
contains no description or suggestion of selecting a plane
within a three-dimensional drawing. Appellants argue that
Himelstein only generates perspective three dimensional
objects by setting a vanishing point and a depth. Further,
Appellants argue that Himelstein only discloses selecting
objects, not planes within a three-dimensional object.
Before we can address Appellants arguments, we must first
determine the scope of Appellants' claim 1. "[T]he name of
the game is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362,
1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir 1998). "Analysis begins
with a key legal question—what is the invention claimed? . . .
Claim interpretation ... will normally control the remainder
of the decisional process." Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg.
Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567-68, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir.),
cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1052 (1987). Claims will be given
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007