Appeal No. 2006-0430 Page 6
Application No. 09/859,425
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, "limitations are not to be read into the claims
from the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059
(Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989)).
Here, independent claims 1 and 16 recite in pertinent part the following
limitations: "a language table storage for storing at least one translation of each of at
least one skeleton content elements based on the skeleton content element and a
language. . . ." In contrast, independent claims 6, 11, and 21 recite "a language table,"
without specifying what is stored therein.
2. Obviousness Determination
"Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious." Ex Parte Massingill,
No. 2003-0506, 2004 WL 1646421, at *3 (Bd.Pat.App & Int. 2004). Here, the examiner
has relied on Tso to teach the aforementioned limitations. The appellants have not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007