Appeal 2007-1603
Application 10/036,356
required by 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(v). From our review of the originally
filed Specification, we find no corresponding structure for these means plus
function limitations beyond a mere recitation of a lookup table. Moreover,
for each of the identified claims which recite a single means plus function
limitation, the Examiner should consider whether each of these claims is
directed to a single means claim. See In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 218 USPQ
195 (Fed. Cir. 1983). We leave it to the Examiner to consider these
numerous issues upon further examination, and we decide the appeal solely
upon the merits of independent claim 17 and group all claims standing or
falling with representative claim 17 since Appellants have not separately
argued these claims.
ANTICIPATION
“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. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Analysis of whether a
claim is patentable over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 begins with a
determination of the scope of the claim. We determine the scope of the
claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language,
but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In
re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827,
1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The properly interpreted claim must then be
compared with the prior art.
“It is well settled that a prior art reference may anticipate when the
claim limitations not expressly found in that reference are nonetheless
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013