Appeal 2007-0831
Application 10/417,656
time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge
gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.”
In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971).
“All the disclosures in a reference must be evaluated, including
nonpreferred embodiments,” in an obviousness determination. In re Mills,
470 F.2d 649, 651, 176 USPQ 196, 198 (CCPA 1972).
Our reviewing court has stated that “limitations from the specification
must not be imported into the claims.” Nazomi Communications, Inc. v.
ARM Holdings, PLC, 403 F.3d 1364, 1368, 74 USPQ2d 1458, 1461 (Fed.
Cir. 2005). Reading a claim in the light of the specification to interpret
broadly worded limitations explicitly recited in the claim is a quite different
thing from reading limitations of the specification into a claim to thereby
narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations
which have no express basis in the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393,
1405, 162 USPQ 541, 551 (CCPA 1969).
ANALYSIS
In view of Smith’s recognition that the display screen adds to the
power consumption in a portable computing device, and Ranganathan’s
teaching that power to the display can be reduced by reducing the number of
pixels that are turned on in the display screen, we agree with the Examiner’s
finding that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify
Smith’s display so that only a reduced number of pixels are turned on for
improved power consumption in the portable computing device. The
Examiner did not have to turn to Appellants’ disclosure to demonstrate the
obviousness of the claimed subject matter (Reply Br. 2).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013