Appeal No. 1998-0943
Application No. 08/300,500
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).
Appellants contend that McCain does not disclose the provision
of a response to a user’s positional input “prior to receiving
subsequently image modification generated by the application
program running on the host computer.” In our view, even
assuming, arguendo, that such response sequence language would
distinguish over McCain, no such language exists in the
claims. In view of the above, since all of the limitations of
independent claims 6 and 11 are disclosed by McCain, the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 6 and 11 is
sustained. 4
Dependent claims 7 and 9 have not been separately argued
by Appellants. Accordingly, these claims will be treated as
falling with their parent claim 6. See In re Young, 927 F.2d
588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re
4The recitations “said host computer” at line 6 of claim
11 and “said positional and selection data” at line 3 of claim
13 lack clear antecedent reference.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007