Appeal No. 2003-1153
Application No. 09/349,214
Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The first step of an anticipation analysis is claim construction.
Helifix Ltd. v. Blok-Lok Ltd., 208 F.3d 1339, 1346, 54 USPQ2d
1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2000). It is well settled that claim
construction includes a review of the claim language and the
specification. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
90 F.3d 1576, 1582-83, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1576-77 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Ordinary principles of claim construction require that "claim
language be given ordinary and accustomed meaning except where a
different meaning is clearly set forth in the specification or
where the accustomed meaning would deprive the claim of clarity."
Northern Telecom Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 215 F.3d
1281, 1287, 55 USPQ2d 1065, 1069.
We now consider the arguments presented for independent
claim 1.
Appellants first argue that "there is no basis for the
examiner's statement that Hermann et al. disclose storing a crash
classification mask for each of a plurality of crash
classifications, each such mask comprising a set of predetermined
sensor values characteristic of the respective crash
classification and a restraint deployment code identifying which
of the restraints should be deployed." Brief at page 5, lines
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007