Ex Parte Deshpande et al - Page 5

                  Appeal 2006-3143                                                                                         
                  Application 09/897,383                                                                                   
                  a text file.  Appellants emphasize that image files are separate and distinct                            
                  from HTML files.  Second, Appellants argue that parsing an HTML file                                     
                  does not enable identification of additional parts that may be needed to                                 
                  render a selection of the image file [Reply Br. 4].                                                      
                  We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 25, 33,                                   
                  and 41.  In our view, Guedalia’s zooming feature illustrated in Fig. 2 fully                             
                  meets these claims given their scope and breadth.  As shown Fig. 2, an                                   
                  image is displayed in viewing window 42 of an HTML page where the                                        
                  viewing window is partitioned into five sub-regions (Guedalia, col. 18, ll.                              
                  57-64; Fig. 2).  Although the displayed image is associated with an HTML                                 
                  page, it nonetheless constitutes an image file.  Accordingly, this initial                               
                  display of the image in the viewing window fully meets “reading an initial                               
                  part of an image file” as claimed.                                                                       
                  To zoom a certain portion of the initial image, the user positions the                                   
                  mouse to a desired location on the image and clicks the mouse.  In so doing,                             
                  the user automatically selects one of the five sub-regions which, in turn,                               
                  initiates retrieval of an associated image portion (e.g., associated response                            
                  region 48) (Guedalia, col. 18, ll. 65 – col. 19, ll. 22).                                                
                         In our view, this selection process fully meets parsing the initial part                          
                  of an image file to identify any additional parts that may be needed to render                           
                  a selection of the image file as claimed giving the term “parsing” its broadest                          
                  reasonable interpretation.  We note at the outset that Appellants have not                               
                  specifically defined the term “parsing” in the specification; accordingly, we                            
                  construe the term with its plain meaning.  See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321,                           
                  13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (noting that claim terms must be                                   
                  given their plain meaning absent a clear definition in the specification).                               

                                                            5                                                              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013