Appeal No. 1998-0943
Application No. 08/300,500
claim 6 additionally reciting the modification of images on
the display of the hand-held device by the host computer.
After reviewing the McCain reference, we agree with the
Examiner’s position (Answer, pages 8 and 9) that all of the
limitations of appealed claims 6 and 11 are disclosed by
McCain. In our view, McCain’s disclosure of the wireless
communication of touch screen positional data from the hand-
held unit to the host computer and the subsequent control of
the presentation of input menu choice screen images on the
display of the hand-held unit (e.g. McCain, column 7, lines
11-13) meets all of the requirements of claims 6 and 11.
After reviewing Appellants’ arguments with respect to the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 11 at page 13 of the
Brief, it is our opinion that such arguments are not
commensurate with the scope of claim 1. It is axiomatic that,
in proceedings before the PTO, claims in an application are to
be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the specification, 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,
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007