Appeal No. 1998-2578
Application No. 08/443,307
Kashigi might fail to disclose that the image data is stored in an arrangement that is
'capable of' constructing multiple screens. The image memory in Kashigi is not only
'capable of,' but does, store multiple screens." From my understanding of the invention,
it is not the image memory performing recited function, but the image memory is the
recipient of the resultant data from the "multiple-screen construction means." The
majority focuses exclusively on the function as recited after the "means for" but the
limitation is a compound limitation also having functional language recited before the
"means for" limitation.
The majority finds no evidence in the record of the word "constructing" has
special meaning to the artisan and they give it its ordinary meaning. I agree with the
majority that both "constructing" and "construction" should be given their ordinary
meaning. Furthermore, I find that neither the majority nor the examiner has considered
the "multiple-screen construction means" portion of the claim limitation, and has not
addressed the "construction" of the data as disclosed in appellant's specification at
pages 9-13 and Figures 4(a) and 4(b) which discusses the user interface to select from
the multiple screen arrangements and image processing to simultaneously display the
multiple images on the screen in the selected arrangement.
The majority at pages 7 and 8 raises the point that independent claim 2 (and
independent claim 3) does not contain 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph issues. While
this issue is immaterial to the rehearing of our decision based on claim 1, the majority
finds that "Appellant instead relies on the argument that the function of storing image
-14-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007