Appeal No. 2000-0146 Page 5
Application No. 08/979,069
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or
appellants in toto, we address the main point of contention
therebetween. First, the examiner asserts, "Peters discloses
... zooming from a first bounding rectangle for the selected
block of text at the source location (8 in Fig. 3) to a second
bounding rectangle for the selected block of text at the
destination location (data destination location in window 2)
...." (Examiner's Answer at 3.) The appellants argue, "the
definition of zooming indicates that the dimensions of both
bounding rectangles must be known before zooming may begin.
See Application, page 14 ...." (Reply Br. at 2.)
In deciding anticipation, “the first inquiry must be into
exactly what the claims define.” In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447,
450, 166 USPQ 545, 548 (CCPA 1970). “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 Anti-bodies, Inc.,
802 F.2d 1367, 1385, 231 USPQ 81, 94-95 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007