Appeal No. 2004-0870 Page 10
Application No. 09/477,419
at 4.) The appellants argue, "nowhere . . . in Green . . . is there any disclosure or
suggestion of replacing the display of an active window with a minimized representation
in response to the selection of a task other than the active task." (Appeal Br. at 13.)
1. Claim Construction
"[T]he Board must give claims their broadest reasonable construction. . . ." In re
Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000). "Moreover,
limitations 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 14 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "detecting the
selection of a task other than the active task; replacing the display of the window for the
active task with a minimized representation for that window and displaying the window
for the selected task, in response to said selection." Giving the representative claim its
broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require, in response to selection of a
task other than the active task, automatically replacing the display of the window for the
active task with a minimized representation thereof.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007