Appeal 2006-2828
Application 09/683,995
banc). A basic canon of claim construction is that one may not read a
limitation into a claim from the written description. Renishaw plc v.
Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248, 48 USPQ2d 1117, 1120
(Fed. Cir. 1998).
In the instant case, we find that Appellants’ narrow interpretation of
the claimed “email messaging program” (i.e., as requiring integrated e-mail
composing and media recording/playback features) is inconsistent with
Appellants’ own Specification that broadly defines the claimed “email
messaging program” in the following manner: “An email messaging
program is defined herein as a program that can both send and receive
email” (Specification, 1, ¶ 0003, emphasis added). Thus, for at least the
aforementioned reasons, we find the language of claim 1 broadly but
reasonably reads on the Budge reference in the manner argued by the
Examiner. Because we find that Budge discloses all that is claimed, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 as being
unpatentable over Budge.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we have decided the appeal
with respect to claims 2-24 on the basis of the selected claim alone.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims as being
anticipated by Budge for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to
representative claim 1.
DECISION
In summary, we have sustained the Examiner’s rejection of all claims
on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-24 is
affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013