Appeal No. 1997-3425 Page 6
Application No. 08/087,824
Microsoft in view of Bealkowski further in view of Fisher.
Rather than repeat the arguments of the appellants or examiner
in toto, we refer the reader to the briefs and answers for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered
the subject matter on appeal and the rejections advanced by
the examiner. Furthermore, we duly considered the arguments
and evidence of the appellants and examiner. After
considering the totality of the record, we are persuaded that
the examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, and 10-
13. Our opinion addresses the interpretation and obviousness
of the claims.
Interpretation of the Claims
The language of the claims requires interpretation.
“Claims are not interpreted in a vacuum, but are part of and
are read in light of the specification.” Slimfold Mfg. Co. v.
Kinkead Indus., Inc., 810 F.2d 1113, 1116, 1 USPQ2d 1563, 1566
(Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007