Appeal No. 2002-0068 Page 5
Application No. 09/102,038
column 1 lines 40-41, and it also allowed a web browser to navigate to the
corresponding URL upon opening an applet in the browser, as taught by
Holzner in the last paragraph on page 363.
(Examiner's Answer at 5-6.) The appellants argue, "Peercy does not disclose using
control information received from an applet to execute a script to generate a map
relating a second HTML file with a command to show a second HTML page." (Reply
Br. at 3.)
"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).
Here, independent claim 15 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "a
map relating a second HTML file with a command to show a second HTML page, the
command invokable by activating a control on a first HTML page, the map generated
from control information derived from execution of an applet in the first HTML page."
Independent claims 1, 7, and 11 specify similar limitations. Giving claims 1, 7, 11, and
15 their broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require using control
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007