Appeal No. 2002-1897 Page 4
Application No. 09/207,420
fall together” (Id. at 3). Therefore, claims 2 and 5 stand or fall with representative
claim 1.
With this representation in mind, rather than reiterate the positions of the
examiner or the appellant in toto, we address the three points of contention
therebetween. First, the examiner asserts, "[d]efinition of a global or top-level entity
and the definition of a subordinate entity are discussed in Fehskens. . . . The global
entity and subordinate entity in Fehskens are related in [a] hierarchical relationship."
(Examiner's Answer at 7.) The appellant argues, "the applied reference clearly fails to
disclose at least the recited feature of space within each entity for a first collection of
references to subordinate entities." (Appeal Br. at 5-6.)
"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). "Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007