Appeal No. 2002-0067 Page 4
Application No. 08/721,921
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellant in toto, we
address the main point of contention therebetween. Admitting that "Na does not
disclose detecting and indicating a malfunction of the communication link at the outdoor
unit, instead of in the indoor unit," (Examiner's Answer at 4), the examiner concludes, "it
would have been very obvious at the time the claimed invention was made to move the
malfunction detector and indication of Na from the indoor unit from the outdoor unit [sic]
for the purpose of outdoor unit [sic] to detect the presence of an abnormal connection
of the cable in order for the manufacturer of the outdoor unitto [sic] redu ce [sic] cost for
returns of their outdoor unit by customers who believe that their outdoor units are
malfunctioning, but actually, it was an abnormal connection of the cable. " (Id.) The
appellant argues, "the Na patent fails to teach, suggest or otherwise render obvious an
apparatus or method for indicating at an outdoor unit whether a malfunction in a
communication link between indoor and outdoor units has occurred. . . ." (Appeal 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 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007