Appeal No. 1999-2070 Application 08/611,899 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In addition, the reference must be enabling and describe the applicant's claimed invention sufficiently to have placed it in possession of a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention. Id. The first step of an anticipation analysis is claim construction. Helifix Ltd. v. Blok-Lok Ltd., 208 F.3d 1339, 1346, 54 USPQ2d, 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2000). It is already well-settled that claim construction includes a review of the claim language and the specification. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582-83, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1576-77 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Ordinary principles of claim construction requires that “claim language be given its ordinary and accustomed meaning except where a different meaning is clearly set forth in the specification or where the accustomed meaning would deprive the claim of clarity.” Northern Telecom Ltd. V. Samsung Electronics Co., 215 F.3d 1281, 1287, 55 USPQ2d 1065, 1069. We now consider the arguments presented for independent claim 1. Appellants first argue that Appellants are not claiming an amplifier as indicated by the Gray patent entitled “Field 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007