Appeal No. 2003-1816 Page 4
Application No. 09/195,593
origin (dx', dy') is equivalent to the claimed (M*N) fill-in indices for addressing the
claimed (M*N) cells." (Appeal Br. at 9.)
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the independent claim at issue to determine its scope. Second, we
determine whether the construed claim 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). "'[T]he main purpose of the examination, to which every application is
subjected, is to try to make sure that what each claim defines is patentable. [T]he name
of the game is the claim. . . .'" In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d
1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles S. Rich, The Extent of the Protection and
Interpretation of Claims --American Perspectives, 21 Int'l Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright
L. 497, 499, 501 (1990))
Here, claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "[a] method for
storing a stoclustic or stochastic halftone screen having (M*N) cells and (H*K) elements
in a memory device, comprising . . . storing (M*N) fill-in indices for addressing the (M*N)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007