Appeal No. 1999-2284
Application 08/798,443
board is coupled to the cable connector and further asserts
that although the data channel card is not expressly directly
connected to the interface connector, nothing in Appellants'
claims precludes such an indirect coupling or connection,
particularly since the claims contain the open-ended
transitional phrase "comprising." Examiner's Answer at page
7.
"A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires
that each and every limitation of the claimed invention be
disclosed in a single prior art reference." In re Paulsen,
30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
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
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007