Appeal No. 1997-2898
Application 08/368,239
We note that Appellants' claim 1 recites "means for
selecting a first plane based on a first aspect of the three
dimensional drawing." The claim does not recite any explicit
activity by the CAD system for selecting a plane. Rather,
relying on the Appellants' specification, beginning on page
12, selection steps are performed by the user. Thus, the 3
claimed means for selecting a first plane is merely the device
allowing the user to make a selection as to what plane will be
considered the first plane.
The Examiner had stated in an Office Action that
Himelstein implicitly teaches storage and selection of planes.
The Appellants argued on page 9 of the brief that it is
improper to infer the existence of claim limitations. We
agree that the Examiner’s language is not artful, but it is
clear that the Examiner intended to argue that the limitation
is inherent within the teachings of the reference.
3We note that Appellants do not argue that the claim is
to be interpreted by looking to the specification for the
corresponding structure, material, or acts described therein,
and equivalents thereof, to the extent that the specification
provides such disclosure.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007