Appeal 2007-0251
Application 10/085,310
uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the
administrative process.” In re Zletz , F.2d 893 319, 322, 13 USPQ2d 1320,
1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
We are therefore not persuaded that the preamble recitation of
claim 15 limits the scope of the claimed subject matter. We will, however,
consider the second part of Appellants’ argument, assuming arguendo that
“handheld computing device” represents a limitation.
Appellants suggest (Br. 8-9) that the specification provides a limiting
definition for the term in controversy. Appellants point to paragraph 3 of the
specification, which speaks only in general terms of “handheld computing
devices,” using terms of degree such as “compact” and “small.” Appellants
seem to acknowledge that the display screen sizes described by Moriconi are
smaller than the size of a “standard” computer monitor, but seem to allege
that the size of the displays described by Moriconi are somewhere between
the size of a standard computer monitor and Appellants’ undefined “smaller”
display. We do not consider the proposal to define a device by its ease of
“viewing complex images of documents” (Br. 9) to be helpful in
determining whether instant claim 15 distinguishes over the reference.
Appellants also submit that paragraph 22 of the specification states
that a handheld computer can be “a handheld personal digital assistant
(PDA), a wireless mobile phone, a pager, or any such device.” (Br. 9.)
Actually, paragraph 22 of the specification describes the embodiment
of processing unit 110 (Fig. 1A), rather than setting forth any definition of
“handheld computing device.” Further, the section does not state that a
handheld computer can be any of the things alleged by Appellants in the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013