Appeal No. 2002-1527 Page 5
Application No. 08/885,817
examiner finds "the nodes are routing the join requests from a computer within one
private network to a computer in another private network. . . ." The appellants argue,
"[t]he Aziz multicast protocol described in the reference does not involve action at any
routers." (Supp. Appeal Br.3 at 6.)
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the claim in question to determine its scope. Second, we determine
whether the construed claim is anticipated.
1. 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). In answering the question, "the Board must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction. . . ." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
not considered in deciding this appeal.
3We rely on and refer to the supplemental appeal brief, (Paper No. 21), in lieu of
the original appeal brief, (Paper No. 16), because the latter was defective. (Paper
No. 17.) The original appeal brief was not considered in deciding this appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007