Appeal No. 2004-1764 Page 5 Application No. 08/704,400 1. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION "Analysis begins with a key legal question — what is the invention claimed?" Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir. 1987). In answering the question, "[t]he Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art." In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582, 32 USPQ2d 1021, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Here, claim 34 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "upon an initial application of force on said user-interface by the user, the actual displacement speed of the cursor is variable within a first speed range, and . . . upon a predetermined time interval after the initial application of force on said user-interface by the user, the actual displacement speed of the cursor is variable within a second speed range." Similarly, claim 40 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "an actual displacement speed of the cursor as represented by said display is variable within a first speed range when a total generation of timing signals is less than a pre-specified number, and the actual displacement speed of the cursor is variable within a second speed range when the total generation of timing signals is equal to or greater than the pre-specified number." Considering these limitations, claims 24 and 40 require displacing a cursor within a range of speed during a predetermined interval of time and, after thePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007