Appeal No. 2003-0549 Page 6
Application No. 09/149,408
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: "enabling a user to
apply formatting changes to less than all of said plurality of pages of said copy . . . free
from changing said original electronic document. . . ." Claims 5, 6, 11, and 16 include
similar limitations. Giving claims 1, 5, 6, 11, and 16 their broadest, reasonable
construction, the limitations require reformatting a copy an electronic document without
altering the original electronic document.
2. Anticipation and Obviousness Determinations
"Having construed the claim limitations at issue, we now compare the claims to
the prior art to determine if the prior art anticipates those claims." In re Cruciferous
Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002). "A claim
is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either
expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros., Inc.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007