Appeal No. 2002-0531 Page 12
Application No. 09/108,687
removable portion in Fig. 4 is, in actuality, a shielded pin contact block. (col. 6, lines 29-
33.)" (Appeal Br. at 12.)
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the representative claim to determine its scope. Second, we
determine whether the construed claim would have been obvious.
1. 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). Here, claim 8 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "a housing;
a plurality of signal and ground contacts arranged in rows and columns within the
housing . . . ; and a detachable wall in a front portion of the housing having a grid of
entrance openings. . . ." Focussing on the language of the claim, the limitations require
a detachable wall for the front of a housing for contacts.
2. Obviousness Determination
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. "In rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007