Appeal No. 2002-1696 Page 4
Application No. 08/921,884
See col. 3 first paragraph." (Id.) The appellant argues, "Fascenda and King do not
customize the information sent to each subscriber unit in a group call message, as does
the instant invention, as claimed." (Appeal Br. at 9.)
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe claims at issue to determine their scope. Second, we determine
whether the construed claims 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, independent claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations:
"delivering a master message addressed to a first group of subscriber units and a
corresponding records message addressed to a second group of subscriber units, the
records message comprising a plurality of records, each record including subscriber-
customized information corresponding to a subscriber unit that will receive the records
message. . . ." Independent claims 10 and 17 include similar limitations. Giving the
independent claims their broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require that
a message comprise records, each record including data customized to a subscriber
that will receive the message.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007