Appeal No. 1998-3134 Page 6
Application No. 08/437,225
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992).... "A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art
itself would appear to have suggested the claimed
subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the
art." In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 782, 26 USPQ2d
1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart,
531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
With these principles in mind, we consider the examiner's
rejection and the appellants' argument.
The examiner contends, “windows are inherently
hierarchical in that windows are invoked from within windows
(Southerton p. 205).” (Examiner’s Answer at 5.) The
appellants argue, “[t]he mere fact that the windows can have a
hierarchical
relationship to one another does not suggest that the code for
drawing those windows should also have a hierarchical
architecture.” (Reply Br. at 3.)
“In the patentability context, claims are to be given
their broadest reasonable interpretations. Moreover,
limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007