Appeal No. 2003-0513 Page 4
Application No. 08/655,879
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 10 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "delaying
propagating a second notification signal that indicates the state transition from the first
component to the second component until the state of the third component indicates
that the propagation should occur. . . ." Claims 15 and 20 include similar limitations.
Giving claims 10, 15, and 20 their broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations
require that a first component delay transfer of a notification to a second component
based on the state of a third component.
2. ANTICIPATION DETERMINATION
"Having construed the claim limitations at issue, we now compare the claims to
the prior art to determine if the prior art anticipates those claims." In re Cruciferous
Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002). "A claim
is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007