Appeal No. 2002-2177 Page 9
Application No. 08/777,424
asserts "the combination as applied demonstrates the claimed 'units', because it
discloses devices (e.g., controller) for performing the recited function." (Id.)
a. Claim Construction
"[L]imitations 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. Cir. 1993) (citing In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Here, claim 8
recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "said automatic layout unit comprises
first and second automatic layout units, said first automatic layout unit includes, in an
automatic layout operation thereof, selection of one of a plurality of predetermined
standard patterns, and said second automatic layout unit comprises intention input unit
for inputting an intention for additionally correcting a layout result of said first automatic
layout unit, and correction unit for automatically correcting at least one of said plurality
of image data of the layout result on the basis of the input intention. . . ." Contrary to
the appellants' argument, the claim does not require correcting "an automatic layout
result of the first automatic unit." (Appeal Br. at 15.) Giving the representative claim its
broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations merely require that a first unit lay out
image data using a pattern and a second unit correct at least one of the image data
based of an intention of a user.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007