Appeal No. 2005-2512
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,431
layout representation of said power net, the graphical user interface including interactive
tools for viewing selected portions of said power net, the layout representation of said
power net including said characteristic of said selected portions of said power net.” Br.
25-26 (emphasis added).
The examiner and appellant disagree about whether Stark discloses a “graphical
user interface” at all, let alone one that satisfies the remaining claim limitations. Claims
under reexamination must ne given their the broadest reasonable interpretations
consistent with the specification. In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citing In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701
(Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en
banc)). Inasmuch as the term is not defined in the ‘952 patent and no definition has
been provided by the examiner or appellant, we hereby adopt the following definition of
the term: “A type of display format that enables the user to choose commands, start
programs, and see files and other options by pointing to pictorial representations
(icons) and lists of menu items on the screen. Choices can generally be activated either
with the keyboard or with a mouse.” Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary 185 (2d ed.
1994) (copy enclosed). None of the displays depicted in Figures 80-85 of Stark fit this
description, as no user-selectable menus or icons are shown. Instead, the figures are
graphical representations of the analyzed circuits in which different magnitudes of the
voltage drops and current densities are depicted as respective shades of gray or black.
Furthermore, these figures fail to reveal any means for viewing selected portions of the
48
Page: Previous 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007