Appeal No. 2003-0495 Page 5
Application No. 09/256,543
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the representative claim to determine their 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).
Here, claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "selecting a subset
of the plurality of channels, wherein the subset includes more than one channel; [and]
determining substantially simultaneously if the synchronization signal exists on at least
one of the subset of channels. . . ." (Emphasis added.) "We are not aided by the
specification herein in determining what degrees are included within the broad term
'substantially.'" In re Nehrenberg, 280 F.2d 161, 165, 126 USPQ 383, 386 (CCPA
1960). The use of the term appears to permit a determination that appears
simultaneous. Giving the claim its broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007