Appeal No. 2003-1371 Page 5
Application No. 09/186,856
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). "Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989)).
Here, claims 1, 7, and 10 recites in pertinent part an "electronic adventure
game." Giving the three claims their broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations
require an electronic game involving an adventure.
2. 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
explicitly and inherently. . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383, 59 USPQ2d 1693,
1696 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007