Appeal No. 2001-1866 Page 3
Application No. 08/478,606
Rejection of Claims 3-15 and 25-38 under § 103(a)
Rather than reiterate the positions of the Board or appellants in toto, we address
the latter's main point of contention. Admitting that "the Board correctly notes that
Johnston transmits information about kilowatt hours and kilowatt demand," (Req. Reh'g
at 4), the appellants argue, "kilowatt hours and kilowatt demand do not represent
'various power measurements' from which the 'selected power measurement' is
obtained. . . ." (Id. at 3.) They explain, "it clear [sic] from the specification of the instant
application that the term 'various power measurements' . . . refers to these well known
types of electrical power - real power (watts), reactive power (VAR), and apparent
power (VA)." (Id. at 4.)
"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