Appeal No. 2002-0501 Page 4
Application No. 08/556,427
their scope. Second, we determine whether the claims as construed would have been
obvious.
Claim Construction
"Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). "The general rule is, of course, that terms in the claim are to be given their
ordinary and accustomed meaning." Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp.,
175 F.3d 985, 989, 50 USPQ2d 1607, 1610 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Renishaw PLC v.
Marposs Societa Per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249, 48 USPQ2d 1117, 1121 (Fed. Cir.
1998); York Prods., Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1572, 40
USPQ2d 1619, 1622 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). "It is well settled that dictionaries provide
evidence of a claim term's 'ordinary meaning.'" Inverness Med. Switz. GmbH v. Warner
Lambert Co., 309 F.3d 1365, 1369, 64 USPQ2d 1926, 1930 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing
Texas Digital Sys. Inc. v. Telegenix Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1818
(Fed. Cir. 2002); CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366, 62
USPQ2d 1658, 1662 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
Here, independent claim 6 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations:
"combining a first unnecessary signal charges generated in said first edge portion and a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007