Appeal No. 2006-2736 Page 6
Application No. 10/038,167
A. 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, "the PTO gives claims their 'broadest reasonable
interpretation.'" In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir.
2000)). "Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification."
In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing
In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Here, claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "said imaging
system allowing influencing of the display of said image on said display unit by a
plurality of different control functions respectively uniquely associated with different
predetermined movement directions of said mouse. . . ." Giving the representative
claim its broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require changing the display
of an image via different control functions respectively associated with different
movement directions of a mouse.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007