Appeal No. 2003-0163
Application No. 09/400,508
with respect to each ground of rejection, except for the instances in which appellants
have presented separate arguments. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7). See also In re
McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("If the brief
fails to meet either requirement [of 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)], the Board is free to select a
single claim from each group of claims subject to a common ground of rejection as
representative of all claims in that group and to decide the appeal of that rejection
based solely on the selected representative claim.").
35 USC § 102
In determining novelty, the first inquiry must be into exactly what the claims
define. In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 450, 166 USPQ 545, 548 (CCPA 1970). Similarly,
a Section 103 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).
The terms used in the claims bear a "heavy presumption" that they mean what
they say and have the ordinary meaning that would be attributed to those words by
persons skilled in the relevant art. Texas Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix Inc., 308 F.3d
1193, 1202, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Dictionaries, encyclopedias, and
treatises are particularly useful resources in determining the ordinary and customary
meanings of claim terms. Id. at 1202, 64 USPQ2d at 1818. Indeed, these materials
may be the most meaningful sources of information in better understanding both the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007