Appeal No. 2001-2055 Page 5
Application No. 08/750,870
Sonberg et al. do disclose the features of: central host computer 14 that is
initially accessible by a call routing option entered by roamer via signaling
path without establishing a communications connection, and Home MTSO
Site 10 controlled by central host computer 14 is to establish a
communications connection with the caller only when the call routing
option entered by the roamer is the code of *31, which is to activate
transparent call forwarding. See column 3, lines 10-58.
(Examiner's Answer at 6.) The appellants argue, "[n]owhere in Sonberg do any of the
service requests lead directly to the establishment of a voice or other communication
connection, as part of the same transaction. Sonberg merely describes an enabling
transaction that allows subsequent (separate and independent) transactions to make
voice calls." (Reply Br. at 6.)
"Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the invention claimed?
Claim interpretation . . . will normally control the remainder of the decisional process."
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