Appeal No. 2005-2422
Application No. 09/760,905
found only in appellant’s specification will not be read into the
claims. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1405, 162 USPQ 541, 551
(CCPA 1969).
Since OSHA and other workplace regulations apply to
workplace lighting and use of office equipment to avoid
eyestrain, we find that the government ergonomics regulations
that apply to appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention (claims
11 and 17) equally apply to the ergonomics resource system
described in Stern.
Using circular reasoning, appellant argues (brief, page 16)
that Stern does not disclose an expert system (claims 2, 5, 10,
16 and 20). We find that Stern discloses an expert system
(Figure 3) that dispenses advice that an optometrist would
normally dispense, and that such ergonomics advice is
understandable by laymen (i.e., the computer user).
Appellant’s argument (brief, page 16) that the web site in
Stern does not ask the user certain questions is without merit in
that the system and method disclosed by Stern has to ask at least
background questions to get the program started for each
individual computer user (claims 3, 19 and 22). Based upon the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007