Appeal 2006-3279
Application 10/039,668
Technology Center 2600
Independent claim 43 links restricting the viewing of an image with
received viewing conditions that define the acceptable amount of time that a
display device has been turned on. Because the § 103(a) rejection over
Holub and McLaughlin does not show disclosure or suggestion for the
subject matter of claim 43, we do not sustain its rejection.
Independent claims 41 and 44, however, do not require that image
display be subject to satisfaction of viewing conditions. The claims, in fact,
make no mention of an image.
The Examiner’s responsive arguments in the Answer suggest that the
claims are so broad as to read on the initial turn-on time for a computer
display, before the display is capable of being calibrated. We agree that
claims 41 and 44 are drafted such that they do not distinguish over, for
example, the required warm-up time for a cathode ray tube display before
any image can be displayed and calibration may be performed. Cf. In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“An
essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise,
clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim
scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.”).
Claims 41 and 44 recite restricting a calibration procedure when the
display device has not been turned on for “an acceptable period of time.”
Contrary to Appellant’s apparent interpretation, the claims do not require
that any time be “measured,” but require “determining” an amount of time
that a display device has been turned on. The response of a computer and
display to initial turn-on, and preparation of the display, determine the
amount of time that the display has been turned on before calibration is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013