Appeal 2006-2594
Application 10/034,394
combination of references would have suggested replacing each graphical
image with a placeholder having a label corresponding to a button.
In addressing the issue, 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.
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:
"replacing each detected graphical element within the selected markup
language source portion with one of a plurality of placeholders
having labels corresponding to a set of buttons. . ." Giving the
representative claim the broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations
require replacing each graphical image with a placeholder having a label
corresponding to a button.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013