Appeal No. 1998-3329 Page 6
Application No. 08/261,518
machine name itself to a particular computer." (Appeal Br. at
9.)
In deciding obviousness, “[a]nalysis 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)(emphasis in original). “Claim
interpretation ... will normally control the remainder of the
decisional process.” Id. at 1597-1598, 1 USPQ2d at 1597.
Here, claim 44 specifies in pertinent part the following
limitations: "(a) providing ... a local machine name which is
a symbolic link for specifying a computer on which execution
is to be performed; ... (b) if the process is to be locally
executed on the first computer, linking the local machine name
to the first computer, and controlling the first computer to
execute the process; and ... (c) if the process is to be
remotely executed on the second computer, transferring the
first context from the first computer to the second computer,
adding the second context to the first context, linking the
local machine name to the second computer, and controlling the
second computer to execute the process." Similarly, claim 52
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007