Appeal No. 1998-1792 Page 5
Application No. 08/453,217
"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). "[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367,
13??, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citing In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147,
1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225
USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)).
Here, representative claim 11 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations:
"regulating the battery voltage using a boost regulator and providing a regulator output
signal. . . ." Similarly, representative claim 1 specifies in pertinent part the following
limitations: "a boost regulator, coupled to a battery output signal contact for receiving a
battery voltage signal, for generating a regulator output signal. . . ." The section of the
specification cited by the appellants explains that the boost regulator "provides a
constant level output voltage independent of the input voltage, including input voltages
which are less than the output regulated voltage." (Spec. at 3.) Giving the claims their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the limitations
require using a regulator that provides an output voltage at a constant level.
"Having construed the claim limitations at issue, we now compare the claims to
the prior art to determine if the prior art anticipates those claims." In re Cruciferous
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007