Appeal No. 2002-0507 Page 3
Application No. 09/405,872
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellant in toto, we
address the main point of contention therebetween. The examiner "opin[es] that the
bracket of Dennis can be used to hold a printed circuit board to a connector."
(Examiner's Answer at 6.) The appellant argues, "the Dennis reference fails to disclose
the 'mounting element adapted to engage at least one mounting screwhole on the
connector for attaching the bracket to the connector' as presently claimed." (Reply Br.
at 2.) He adds, "[t]his is because . . . Dennis replaces a connector, it does not mount to
a connector." (Id. at 3.) In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a
two-step analysis. First, we construe the claims to determine their scope. Second, we
determine whether the construed claims are anticipated or would have been obvious.
Claim Construction
"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 construing claims, the analytical focus must begin and remain centered
on the language of the claims themselves. . . ." Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v.
Compuserve, Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331, 59 USPQ2d 1401, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
(citing 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007