Appeal No. 2002-1383
Application No. 08/868,972
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Fisk.
Claims 8, 12, 18, 23, 25, 27, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Subramanian.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Subramanian and Suzuki.
Claims 14, 15, 24, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Subramanian and Fisk.
Claims 13, 26, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being
unpatentable over Subramanian and Hiller.
Claims 3-5 and 20 have been objected to as depending from rejected claims.
We refer to the Rejection (Paper No. 12) and the Examiner’s Answer (Paper No.
14) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (Paper No. 13) for
appellants’ position with respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
Claim interpretation
In determining novelty, the first inquiry must be into exactly what the claims
define. In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 450, 166 USPQ 545, 548 (CCPA 1970). Similarly, a
section 103 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).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007