Appeal No. 2003-1729 Page 5
Application No. 09/229,733
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 are anticipated or 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). Here, independent claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations:
"receiving, by a first process requesting a profile token, the profile token representative
of the user in response to successfully authenticating the user, the profile token having
one or more associated usage limitations. . . ." Independent claims 14 and 23 include
similar limitations. Accordingly, the independent claims require that a process receive a
profile token in response to successful authentication of a user.
2. ANTICIPATION DETERMINATION
"Having construed the claim limitations at issue, we now compare the claims to
the prior art to determine if the prior art anticipates those claims." In re Cruciferous
Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002). "A claim
is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either
expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros., Inc.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007