Appeal No. 2006-2118 Page 5
Application No. 10/022,754
system,” as claimed [answer, page 5]. The examiner concludes that the
candidate word menu list selection of the second data input system can be made
with any pointing device such as a mouse or light pen, as disclosed by Grover at
col. 9, lines 22-23 [id.].
We begin by construing the scope of the claimed “stylus input system”
[claim 1, emphasis added]. “During patent examination, the pending claims must
be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed.
Cir. 2000). Claim language is given its plain, ordinary, or accustomed meaning
to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art, unless the applicant has imparted a
novel meaning to the language. Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d
1313, 1325, 63 USPQ2d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In the instant case, we
note that the plain, ordinary, and accustomed meaning of the term “stylus”
comports with a pointed instrument, such as a pencil or a pen. Therefore, we
find that appellant’s claimed “stylus input system” is properly construed broadly
as encompassing any input system that uses a pointed instrument for input
[claim 1, emphasis added]. We note that this broad construction finds support
within the instant specification at page 1, line 19, (e.g., “stylus-aided input
systems”) and also within U.S. Pat. 6,285,785 to Bellegarda et al. (as
incorporated by reference into the instant specification at page 1, line 22) [see
Bellegarda et al., col. 5, line 38, e.g., “electronic tablet and stylus,” emphasis
added].
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007