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