Appeal No. 2002-1006
Application 09/132,351
defined dispatch group based on either the originating device ID
or the target address. Appellant argues that as a result,
Sanders’ device does not accommodate directing a single short
message to different groups of called subscriber numbers by
designating different group identifiers. See page 5 of
Appellant’s brief.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is the
claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523,
1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “In examining a patent claim, the PTO
must apply the broadest reasonable meaning to the claim language,
taking into account any definitions presented in the
specification.” In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577, 65 USPQ2d 1156,
1158 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Citing In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569,
1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Words in a claim are
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007