Appeal No. 2004-0171 Page 5
Application No. 09/239,295
Cir. 1987). In answering the question, "[c]laims 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, independent claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "[a]
method for automatically re-authoring a document. . . ." Similarly, independent claim 58
recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "[a] document re-authoring system that
automatically re-authors a document. . . ." The appellants' specification describes the
automatic re-authoring as follows.
Automatic document re-authoring involves developing software that can
take an arbitrary document, such as an HTML [i.e., Hypertext Markup
Language3] document, designed to be displayed on a desktop-sized
monitor, along with characteristics of the target display device, and re-
author the arbitrary document through a series of transformations, so that
the arbitrary document can be appropriately displayed on the target
display device.
(Spec. at 3-4.) More specifically, the specification explains that the document designed
to be displayed on a desktop-sized monitor is transformed for "display on a smaller
display screen, such as those used with a PDA or a cellular telephone." (Id. at 53, ll. 2-
3HTML is "a standard page description language," Berenice, col. 1, 11. 25-26,
which "provides basic document formatting and allows the developer to specify 'links' to
other servers and files." Id. at ll. 27-28.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007