Appeal No. 1999-2839
Application 08/824,716
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 require 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 1381, 1387, 55 USPQ2d
1065, 1069. In general, the plain language of the claim
controls. See Jackson v. Casio Phonemate, Inc., 105 F.2d 858,
875, 56 USPQ2d 1081, 1094. The second step in an anticipation
analysis involves a comparison of the construed claim[s] to the
prior art. Id.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007