Appeal No. 2006-2177 Page 5
Application No. 10/127,152
display portion of the user interface. Siegel does not state whether only the
thumbnails scroll or if the entire display above the scroll bar scrolls." (Appeal Br. at 12.)
"In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the representative claim at issue to determine its scope. Second, we
determine whether the construed claim would have been obvious." Ex Parte Massingill,
No. 2003-0506, 2004 WL 1646421, at *2 (B.P.A.I. 2004).
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, "[c]laims must be read in view of the
specification, of which they are a part." Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52
F.3d 967, 979, 34 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc).
Here, claim 23 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "a scrolling
navigational ribbon displaying a first portion of a first plurality of descriptive text titles
providing a means for accessing a first set of user-selectable information. . . ." For its
part, the appellants' "Figure 3 is an exemplary computer screen shot illustrating a
display window 300 of a user interface with a scrolling navigational ribbon 310 according
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013