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
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007