Appeal 2007-1838
Application 10/118,523
12. Cook further discloses that the control module learns the motion
characteristics of the door system and detects an obstacle when the feedback
from the position encoder is not characteristic of the door system (col. 9, ll.
29-37).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
1. Scope of claims
Absent an express intent to impart a novel meaning to a claim term,
the words take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them
by those of ordinary skill in the art. Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive
Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298, 67 USPQ2d 1132, 1135-36 (Fed. Cir.
2003). The claim construction analysis begins with the words of the claim.
See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582, 39 USPQ2d,
1573, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Claims will be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations appearing in
the specification are not to be read into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d
852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
2. Anticipation
A rejection for anticipation requires that the four corners of a single
prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention, either
expressly or inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could
practice the invention without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder
Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir.
1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed.
Cir. 1994).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013