Appeal No. 2005-0433
Application No. 09/982,481
and arranging the plurality of records to construct the array such that each of the
adjacent data points is assigned a record.
Claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation during
prosecution, and the scope of a claim cannot be narrowed by reading disclosed
limitations into the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023,
1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
Notwithstanding the implications of appellants’ argument, that data points are “adjacent”
does not necessarily mean there is contact between the data points.1 The word
“adjacent” may require no more of the subjects than their being “close to” or “lying near.”
See, e.g., The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition at 79 (1982 ed.).
Appellants have not shown error in the examiner’s findings with respect to what
Tabei teaches beyond the express embodiments described.2 Aside from that, however,
we note that instant claim 1 sets forth a “plurality” of records -- or, at a minimum, two.
Tabei shows, in Figure 11, two displayed data points representing two records in the
lower left rectangle of the (topmost) graph (i.e., 0 to 25 “profit” and 0 to 250 “sales”).
The two data points are adjacent, at least in comparison with the data points that
1 Moreover, it seems unlikely that any “data points” would be in contact in an “array.”
2 What a reference teaches is a question of fact. In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 382, 29 USPQ2d 1550,
1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1311, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007