Appeal No. 2002-0040 Page 3
Application No. 08/937,392
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or appellant in toto, we
address the main point of contention therebetween. The examiner asserts, "Duda et al.
had specifically suggested construction of a global index (See Duda et al. Col. [sic] 127,
lines 5-7).” (Examiner's Answer at 4.) He adds, "there is no difference between
constructing an index and constructing a catalog." (Id.) The appellant argues, "Duda et
al. do not teach the steps of creating an entry in a catalog corresponding to a network
address of a second file which has not been downloaded, and assigning the link text as
a description of the second file." (Appeal Br. at 6.)
“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, claim 4 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "[a] method of
constructing an entry in a catalog of files stored on a network, comprising . . . a second
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007