Appeal No. 2000-0267 Page 8
Application No. 08/856,943
obviousness, “[a]nalysis begins with a key legal question --
what is the invention claimed?” Panduit Corp. v. Dennison
Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir.
1987).
Here, claim 22 specifies in pertinent part the following
limitations: a "peg section protrudes from a wall of the
receiving compartment in an angled direction generally towards
the spring contact . . . ." Similarly, claim 29 specifies in
pertinent part the following limitations: an "element on the
cradle member being angled towards a bottom of a housing
receiving area of the cradle member . . . .” Accordingly,
claims 22 and 29 require inter alia an element of a receiving
compartment protruding generally toward a spring contact or
toward a bottom of the compartment, respectively.
Starting with the anticipation rejection, “having
ascertained exactly what subject matter is being claimed, the
next inquiry must be into whether such subject matter is
novel.” Wilder, 429 F2d at 450, 166 USPQ at 548. “A claim is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007