Appeal No. 2002-2012
Application No. 08/953,707
1348, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1205, (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Intervet America Inc v. Kee-
Vet Laboratories Inc. 12 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). “[T]he 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. 2002).
Independent claim 26 contains the limitations of “resizing text describing the
displayed program to fit in a fixed sized window” and “displaying the text within the fixed
sized window.” Independent claims 34 and 42 contain similar limitations. The term
“fixed” is not defined in appellants’ specification. However the plain meaning of the term
fixed is “definite; not fluctuating or varying.” Thus we find that the reasonable
interpretation of the limitation of a fixed sized window is one that is definite and not
variable.
We find that Torres teaches a variable sized window and that as the window size is
decreased the size of the characters in the window are adjusted so that data displayed in
the window is not lost (Column 3, lines 18-21 and lines 40-49). Torres teaches that the
text is only resized if it does not fit in the new or adjusted window (see Column 8 lines 35
to 38) and thus, we find that Torres teaches the claimed “resizing of the text is dictated by
the amount of text.” However, Torres does not teach the claimed “fixed sized window.”
Though, as the examiner argues, Torres does not teach adjusting the text and window
size in the same step, Torres does nonetheless teach that the window size is variable and
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007