Appeal No. 2003-0957 Page 5
Application No. 09/074,074
facilitate storage of messages in accordance with most specific/special relevance and
importance to the user/customer, so their automatic and unmistakable inclusion/
incorporation in the billing statement for the user/customer is ascertained and thus help
maintaining a great customer service and business relationship." (Id.) The appellants
argue, "the teaching of 'highest priority' without more does not supply the requisite
suggestion to lead one lead one of skill in the art to modify Thomson to include 'using
only those selected messages that have the highest priority and that can fit within the
message area (of a billing statement template) when generating each customer billing
statement.'" (Reply Br. at 3.)
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe 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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007