Appeal No. 2003-0553 Page 4
Application No. 09/137,285
connects to said system (see ref col. 3 lines 4 et seq); and a second
connector that connects to said peripheral (see ref col. 3 lines 4 et seq) ; a
first device that controls communication between said computer system
and peripheral based on a code (see ref col. 4 lines 5 et seq of the
specification et seq), a first device that checks code received through a
first connector and a second device that provides a code to the first device
(see ref fig 1-3, col. 4 lines 16 et seq ), a processor (fig 1 element 10), a
storage device (fig 1 element 12), an interface (see ref fig 1-3 element 18).
(Examiner's Answer at 3.) The appellant argues, "there is no teaching in Arato of a
second device that provides a code to enable a controlled communication between the
peripheral and the computer system based on the code," (Appeal Br. at 6), and "there is
no second device at the peripheral itself." (Id.)
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the independent claim at issue to determine its scope. Second, we
determine whether the construed claim is anticipated.
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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007