Appeal No. 2005-2622 Page 3
Application No. 09/923,089
Here, independent claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations:
at least one software application is operative to determine the first and the
second types of the first and the second input devices, wherein the at
least one software application is operative to cause a first user interface to
be output through the first display device responsive to the determined
first type of the first input device, and wherein the at least one software
application is operative to cause a second user interface different from the
first user interface to be output through the second display device
responsive to the determined second type of the second input device.
Independent claims 8, 18, 26, and 37 include similar limitations.
Regarding the specification, the appellants make the following assertion.
As used in the Specification, the recited term "type'' corresponds to the
physical features and/or capabilities of the input device, and not any form
of user or operator designations associated with the persons using the
input devices. For example, on page 8, lines 14-22; Page 12, line 12, to
Page 13, line 12, the Specification discusses a mouse type input device
and a function key type input device as different types of input devices.
(Req. Reh'g at 6-7.) Reading the aforementioned limitations in view of these parts of
the specification, the independent claims require determining whether each input device
is a mouse or a set of function keys and then responsively displaying a corresponding
user interface.
B. ANTICIPATION AND OBVIOUSNESS DETERMINATIONS
Having construed the claim limitations at issue, we now compare the claims to
the prior art to determine whether the prior art anticipates or would have suggested
those claims. "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007