Appeal No. 2004-1517
Application No. 09/765,172
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellant argues that Brisebois fails to teach each and
every limitation of the claimed invention. In particular,
Appellant argues that Brisebois does not teach that the flexible
input device is positioned on the display. See pages 4 and 5 of
the brief. Appellant argues the Brisebois teaches that the
active edge input device 120 is a user interface device
positioned adjacent to display 110. Appellant agrees that
Brisebois does teach that active edge input device 120 may
actually touch display 110 or lay a predetermined distance away
from an edge of the display 110 but Brisebois fails to teach to
position a touch interface overlapping onto the display device.
See page 2 of the reply brief.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. "[T]he name of the game is the
claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523,
1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). As our reviewing court states, "[T]he
terms used in the claims bear a 'heavy presumption' that they
mean what they say and have the ordinary meaning that would be
attributed to those words by persons skilled in the relevant
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007