Appeal No. 2001-0522
Application No. 08/887,830
appellants argue there is no disclosure in Kojima of a combination object which may be
user activated to perform combined graphical functions. (Reply Brief at 2.)
We note that both the statement of the rejection and the response to arguments
in the Answer (e.g., bottom of page 4) appears to discount or disregard language that
has been added to the claims during prosecution pertaining to “interactive graphical
functions” and “graphical functions.” However, we consider the relevant recitations to
limit the scope of the subject matter and thus be actual limitations. The terms used in
the claims bear a “heavy presumption” that they mean what they say and have the
ordinary meaning that would be attributed to those words by persons skilled in the
relevant art. Texas Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202, 64
USPQ2d 1812, 1817 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2002). The principal definition of “graphical” is
“formed by writing, drawing, or engraving.” Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary
at 533 (1990 ed.).
The rejection does not attempt to “explain away” the limitations with respect to
the graphical functions. We are unsure, as are appellants, how the reference may be
deemed to disclose performance of interactive graphical functions and combining of the
graphical functions, as required to some extent (i.e., in different scope) by each
independent claim on appeal.
The Answer (at 5) asserts that the limitations with respect to performance and
combination of graphical functions are clearly anticipated by Kojima, and quotes from
(but does not cite) material at column 43 of the reference.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007