Appeal No. 2006-0542 Page 5
Application No. 10/054,083
deemed by the Office as an engaging surface positioned on a lever mechanism to apply
a lever force on the card during insertion of the card in the slot of the connector. . . ."
(Examiner's Answer at 12.) The appellants argue, "None of the figures show a situation
where the alleged engaging surface . . . is contacting the alleged contact surface on the
card . . . during the card insertion." (Appeal Br. at 8.)
"In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the representative claim at issue to determine its scope. Second, we
determine whether the construed claim would have been obvious." Ex Parte Massingill,
No. 2003-0506, 2004 WL 1646421, at *2 (Bd.Pat.App & Int. 2004).
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 PTO gives claims their 'broadest reasonable
interpretation.'" In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir.
2000)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007