Appeal No. 2003-1031 Page 7
Application No. 09/050,841
a. 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). Here, claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "said first
domain and said second domain are non-cooperating domains, said non-cooperating
domains having no knowledge of one another and wherein said non-cooperating
domains do not directly communicate state information between one another. . . ." "The
phrase 'non-cooperating domains' has been extensively defined in the application and
the file history, and is recited in independent claims 1, 22 & 42 to mean that the
domains have no knowledge of one another and do not directly communicate state
information between one another." (Supp. Appeal Br. at 9.) Accordingly, the limitations
require domains having no knowledge of one another and being unable to directly
communicate state information between themselves.
b. Obviousness Determination
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. The question of obviousness is
"based on underlying factual determinations including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007