Appeal No. 2001-0529 Page 4
Application No. 08/846,600
OPINION
Our opinion addresses the rejections in the following order:
• anticipation rejection of claim 19
• obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3-9, and 22.
Anticipation Rejection of Claim 19
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we
address the point of contention therebetween. The examiner finds, "Young further
discloses . . . caus[ing] the processing device to generate a set of texel address for a
particular point of one of the plurality of spans (col 3, lines 31-36). . . ." (Examiner's
Answer at 5.) The appellants argue, "Young, et al. . . . does not teach generating a set
of texel addresses for one particular point of one of the plurality of spanset al. [sic]"
(Appeal Br. at 7.)
"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.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007