Appeal No. 1998-2578
Application No. 08/443,307
According to appellant’s specification (at pages 6 through 11), display
memory 20 is loaded with image data from buffer memory 19. The image data is stored
in display memory 20, as reflected in the claims, “in an arrangement capable of
constructing multiple screens.” The image data in the Kashigi device is stored in one-
frame memory 30 “in an arrangement capable of constructing multiple screens.” The
image data is converted to analog form by means of D/A converter 57 (Fig. 3),
processed through low pass filter 59, and available for display at output 14. In the
described Figure 5 embodiment, the output consists of a display composed of (four)
multiple full screens.
We are thus unpersuaded that Kashigi fails to teach the feature alleged by
appellant to be absent. To the extent that appellant may be arguing that the claim
recitation of “capable of constructing multiple screens” captures disclosed process
steps that are unexpressed in the instant claims, we decline to read unrecited
limitations into the claims. Claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation during prosecution, and the scope of a claim cannot be narrowed by
reading disclosed limitations into the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054,
44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d
1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ 541, 550
(CCPA 1969).
There is no evidence in the record that the word “constructing” has any special
meaning to the artisan. Nor do we find any particular definition of the word in the
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007