Appeal No. 2003-0493
Application No. 09/108,716
We concur, and find that each of independent claims 31, 36, 41 and 46, contains this
limitation. The term “window” used in this limitation is however not defined in the
specification. Page 8 of the appellants’ specification contains a description of a window
stating “[t]he use of a window to frame and thereby select particular elements for further
consideration thereof is well known…” Thus, we construe the term window to be a
device to select a number of elements for further consideration. We note that
appellants’ specification makes no mention of the window being a visual display type of
window, according we hold that the scope of the window limitation does not include a
visual type window. 2 In the context of the claims these windows are to select a number
of elements in a list, the elements selected are titled “local elements.” Further, we note
that the claim language that the window “defines a first set of local elements”
necessarily requires that the window contain more than one element.
The examiner responds to the appellants’ argument concerning the lack of
motivation, on page 11 of the answer, by providing the rationale that “[u]sing a window
to frame the individual values makes it easier for a user to control or view the individual
chosen items.” On page 11 of the answer, the examiner argues that Thompson’s items
18 or 20 meet the claimed “local elements.”
2 Though figure 2 of appellants’ specification shows windows items 51 and 52, Figure 2 is
described, on page 4 of appellants’ specification, as a “diagrammatic illustration” and not as a
sample of a display produced by the device.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007