Appeal 2007-0493
Application 10/289,967
Patent 6,144,380
broader in that they do not contain the “displaying handwriting written on
the current page of the book after a mark-up button has been selected” and
“hiding all handwriting and associated text written with said pointer on
the current page when the mark-up button is re-selected,” steps of issued
patent claim 1.
(2)
Clement: Step 2
Appellants argue “reissue independent claims 5, 27, 49, and 77 are
broader than originally issued independent claim 1 in a manner not directly
pertinent to the subject matter surrendered during prosecution (the use of a
mark-up button to display or hide handwriting).” (Br. 10) We disagree.
Our finding in section (1) involving Clement: Step 1 shows
Appellants’ argument to simply be in error. We find that independent claims
5, 27, 49, and 77 are broader than originally issued independent claim 1 in a
manner directly pertinent to the subject matter surrendered during
prosecution (the use of a mark-up button to display or hide handwriting).
Therefore, this argument fails to show Examiner erred in rejecting
based on recapture.
(3)
Meyers v. United States
Appellants argue that the decision in B.E. Meyers & Co., Inc. v. The
United States, 47 Fed. Cl. 200, 50 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cl. 2000), is relevant
- 48 -
Page: Previous 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013