Appeal No. 2000-2238 Page 3
Application No. 08/826,922
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or appellants in toto, we
address the point of contention therebetween. The examiner asserts, "Schmid clearly
disclose [sic] . . . presenting a series of questions related to the selected application to
the user (figure 4, #65-67), answering the series of presented questions (#68),
processing the answers in the microprocessor (#38), forming a message suitable for
transmission (#70) and transmitting the message over the cellular communications
system (figure 1)." (Examiner's Answer at 3-4.) The appellants argue that Schmid’s
"mobile telephone is not described as having the capability of generating messages
from message components stored and compiled at the mobile phone." (Reply Br. at 2.)
They explain, “[t]here are no suggested responses.” (Appeal Br. at 3-4.)
“Analysis 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). In answering the question, “the Board must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction. . . .” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Here, independent claim 1 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations:
"storing, within the communication device, at least one possible user response for each
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007