Appeal No. 2003-0509 Page 5
Application No. 08/657,510
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:
first subprocesses for displaying a hierarchy of selectable classes in a
class tree, the selectable classes being selectable for inclusion in the
application under development from the class tree; second subprocesses
for simultaneously displaying a graphical representation of the application
under development; and third subprocesses for simultaneously displaying
code for one of the selectable classes.
Claim 7 includes similar limitations. Giving claims 1 and 7 their broadest, reasonable
construction, the limitations require simultaneously displaying a graphical representation
of an application under development, a hierarchy of selectable classes, and code for
one of the selectable classes.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007