Appeal No. 1998-1388 Page 7
Application No. 08/357,678
“[T]he main purpose of the examination, to which every
application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what
each claim defines is patentable. [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) (quoting Giles S. Rich,
The Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of Claims
--American Perspectives, 21 Int'l Rev. Indus. Prop. &
Copyright L. 497, 499, 501 (1990)). Here, claims 1, 2, and 4-
12 each specify in pertinent part the following limitations:
an input mechanism for moving a position
identifier, said input mechanism being capable of
generating cursor events;
...
a Viewable Object Processor that allows a user
to manipulate said at least one viewable object by
using only said cursor events, said cursor events
being generated when said position identifier is
moved into a specialized region via a specialized
path.
Similarly, claims 13-17 each specify in pertinent part the
following limitations: “moving a position identifier via a
specialized path into a specialized region on said display
screen, said specialized region being associated with at least
one of said viewable objects ....” Also similarly, claims 18-
22 each specify in pertinent part the following limitations:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007