Appeal No. 1999-2259
Application 08/711,614
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
(Fed. Cir. 2000). In general, the plain language of the claim
controls. See Jackson v. Casio Phonemate, Inc., 105 F.2d
858, 875, 56 USPQ2d 1081, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The second
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007