Ex Parte ALLEE - Page 4




              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