Appeal No. 2003-0527 Page 4
Application No. 09/036,291
voltage across the electrodes (Col. 26, line 48 and Fig. 2B). " (Examiner's Answer at 8.)
The appellants argue, "the Examiner has not shown any terminology that Okuda
allegedly uses to describe measuring an amount of charge or disconnecting in
response to an indication of a predetermined amount of charge. Instead, Okuda
teaches controlling a power profile and monitoring a current (i.e., a rate of charge flow,
not an amount of charge) and fails to teach the limitations of the claimed invention."
(Reply Br. at 2.)
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 are anticipated or 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, "[c]laims are not interpreted in a vacuum, but are
part of and are read in light of the specification." Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus.,
Inc., 810 F.2d 1113, 1116, 1 USPQ2d 1563, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing Hybritech Inc.
v. Monoclonal Anti-bodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1385, 231 USPQ 81, 94-95 (Fed. Cir.
1986); In re Mattison, 509 F.2d 563, 565, 184 USPQ 484, 486 (CCPA 1975)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007