Appeal No. 2005-2268 Page 12
Application No. 09/976,683
A. CLAIMS 1, 2, 4-7, AND 9
The appellant argues, "there is no suggestion that [White's] entire screen area
have a single image displayed in one mode of operation. Each area is described in
White et al. as remaining dedicated to a certain type of image." (Appeal Br. at 4.)
In addressing the point of contention, we conduct a two-step analysis. First, we
construe the representative claim at issue to determine its scope. Second, we
determine whether the subject matter of the construed claim would have been obvious.
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, we "give claims their broadest reasonable
construction. . . ." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir.
2000).
Here, claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "normally
producing a display image occupying the complete area of said electronic display in one
mode. . . ." Giving the representative claim its broadest, reasonable construction, the
limitations require showing an image that occupies the entire area of a display.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007