Appeal No. 09/349,477 Page 5
Application No. 2003-1923
a description of physical attributes and/or service requirements of data packets and is
not a description of contents of data packets." (Appeal Br. at 9.)
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 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). "The general rule is, of course, that terms in the claim are to be given their
ordinary and accustomed meaning." Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp.,
175 F.3d 985, 989, 50 USPQ2d 1607, 1610 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Renishaw PLC v.
Marposs Societa Per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249, 48 USPQ2d 1117, 1121 (Fed. Cir.
1998); York Prods., Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1572, 40
USPQ2d 1619, 1622 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). "It is well settled that dictionaries provide
evidence of a claim term's 'ordinary meaning.'" Inverness Med. Switz. GmbH v. Warner
Lambert Co., 309 F.3d 1365, 1369, 64 USPQ2d 1926, 1930 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing
Texas Digital Sys. Inc. v. Telegenix Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1818
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007