Appeal No. 2000-0358
Application No. 08/678,409
and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick
Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. "[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). In addition, claims are to be interpreted
as the terms reasonably allow. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321,
13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Claim 1 recites the step of "acquiring said new access right
by said virtual input device by causing the first object to
interact with a second object representing access rights of said
virtual input device." Taking a reasonably broad interpretation,
claim 1 requires the step of acquiring a new access right using a
virtual input device to cause a first object to interact with a
second object, the second object representing the access rights
of the virtual input device.
We also note that claim 8 includes the limitation,
"[a] machine readable medium having stored thereon data
representing sequences of instructions, which when
executed by a computer system, cause the computer
system to perform the step of . . . acquiring said new
access right by said virtual input device by causing
the first object to interact with a second object
representing access rights of said virtual input
devices"
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007