Appeal No. 2001-1764 Page 5
Application No. 08/784,670
“Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the invention claimed?”
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). In answering the question, “the Board must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction. . . .” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “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)).
Here, representative claim 43 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations:
"presenting said menu, said menu having at least some menu items arranged based on
two or more heuristic factors, wherein at least one of said two or more heuristic factors
is selected from the group consisting of recency of menu item selection, frequency of
menu item selection, and time of day of menu item selection. . . .” Giving the claim its
broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations do not require arranging menu items
based on “a recency heuristic combined with a frequency heuristic; . . . a recency
heuristic combined with a time of day heuristic; or . . . a recency heuristic combined with
both a frequency heuristic and a time of day heuristic,” (Appeal Br. at 10), as argued by
the appellant. Instead, claim 43 merely requires arranging menu items based on at
least two heuristics, one of which is frequency, recency, or time-of-day.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007