Appeal No. 2003-1430
Application No. 09/414,458
where multiple input ports per MUX, instead of a respective port
per MUX, is shown (id.).
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner asserts
that the claimed multiplexer also has multiple ports, as shown in
an annotated copy of Appellant’s Figure 4 and included in the
answer as Attachment II, labeled as W3 and W4 and connected to
multiplexer 44a (answer, page 10). The Examiner also points to
an annotated copy of Figure 4 of Glass, included in the answer as
Attachment I, to identify the upper input B from an upper port G
as well as the lower input C from a lower port H as the claimed
multiplexer inputs that are coupled to respective ports (id.).
Before addressing the Examiner’s rejection based on prior
art, it is essential that we understand the claimed subject
matter and determine its scope. Accordingly, we will initially
direct our attention to Appellants’ claim 1 in order to determine
its scope. Claim interpretation must begin with the language of
the claim itself. See Smithkline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena
Laboratories Corp., 859 F.2d 878, 882, 8 USPQ2d 1468, 1472 (Fed.
Cir. 1988). See also Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“The
starting point for any claim construction must be the claims
themselves.”).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007