Appeal No. 2005-0985
Application No. 09/003,000
1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The fact that Lee may not describe the invention in the same
terms as used in the instant claims is not determinative. Further, to the extent
appellant’s position may be based on the view that the claims are limited to the details
of the representative embodiments, we remind appellant that 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).
Moreover, the claims contain an additional level of abstraction that seems not to
be appreciated by appellant. For example, in remarks concerning instant claim 17,
appellant argues (Brief at 8) that the cited portions of Lee “merely describe homework
assignments, which are not a learner’s curriculum.” Claim 17, however, and base claim
16, recite “information about each learner’s curriculum” (emphasis added), rather than
requiring a “learner’s curriculum.” We agree with the examiner that the artisan would
consider homework assignments to comprise information about a curriculum. For
example, a homework assignment in organic chemistry would be suggestive of a
natural science curriculum, and not suggestive of a political science curriculum, thus
conveying information about the learner’s curriculum.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007