Appeal No. 2002-1938 Page 3
Application No. 09/292,959
a router connected between all of said modules and the processor
for the purpose of controlling flow of data between the processor and the
modules.
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over U.S.
Patent No. 6,128,509 (“Veijola”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,541,927 (“Kristol”).
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we
address the main point of contention therebetween. Acknowledging that "Veijola did
not explicitly show his system was a 'single integrated circuit,'" (Examiner's Answer
at 5), the examiner asserts, "Veijola showed his integrated circuit (movable station 10,
see fig. 11 and fig. 2 for background) comprises at least two modules (applications 70
[and] 72), a DSP 23 and the connectivity layer 41 (connectivity 41 was taught to be the
combination of the router 40 and connection layer 42, see col.5, lines 65-67, col.6,
lines 1-8)." (Id.) The appellants argue, "Veijola does NOT teach the router, DSP and
application modules as part of the same integrated circuit." (Reply Br. at 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007