Appeal No. 1999-2413
Application No. 08/754,203
images, as illustrated in the display of Figures 3b and 3c, from
the raw images produced by two input image units. It is our view
that when the system of Karasawa is combined with the inverted and
turned image display teachings of Eino, the subsequent combination
would result in a display of both raw and transformed images as
claimed.
With respect to Appellants’ argument concerning the alleged
failure of the Examiner’s proposed combination to suggest the
feature of selecting a preferred combination of transformed images
to be outputted, we find such argument to not be commensurate with
the scope of the claims. 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, 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).
We find nothing in the language of the appealed independent claims
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007