Appeal No. 2003-0048 Page 4
Application No. 09/163,787
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the independent 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). 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).
Here, claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "forming, by the
client, a list of servers having peripherals having the basic function based upon
announcements discovered in said step of searching; retrieving, by the client, data
including that which specifies whether the peripheral has the additional function from
servers on the list of servers having peripherals; and identifying, by the client,
peripherals having the additional function by examining data retrieved in said step of
retrieving from the list of servers." Claim 6 includes similar limitations. Giving the
independent claims their broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require that
a client form a list of servers connected to peripherals performing a basic function,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007