Appeal No. 2003-0509 Page 9
Application No. 08/657,510
Here, the appellants stipulate, "[d]ependent Claims 16, 17 . . . stand or fall with
Claim 15." (Appeal Br. at 4.) With this stipulation in mind, we focus on the following
points of contention between the examiner and the appellants:
- displaying class package
- displaying code for selected class
- retrieving class package.
1. Displaying Class Package
The examiner finds, "a class package as disclosed refers to a class, a part, a
component, or a set of related classes." (Examiner's Answer at 3-4.) The appellants
argue, " the cited art does not teach displaying classes from a class package. . . ."
(Appeal Br. at 10.)
a. Claim Construction
"Claims are not interpreted in a vacuum, but are part of and are read in light of
the specification." Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc., 810 F.2d 1113, 1116, 1
USPQ2d 1563, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Anti-bodies,
Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1385, 231 USPQ 81, 94-95 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Mattison, 509
F.2d 563, 565, 184 USPQ 484, 486 (CCPA 1975)). Here, claim 15 recites in pertinent
part the following limitations: "displaying classes from a first class package. . . ."
According to the appellants' specification, "the term 'class package' is used to
describe a class library, a class, a part, a component, or a set of classes that are
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007