Appeal No. 2003-1942 Page 4
Application No. 09/260,796
that the user inputs a user identifier and password; the member definitions of the
collaborative document are searched in order to locate the member identifier
corresponding to the user identifier." (Examiner's Answer at 13.) He then explains, "[i]n
Carter, the client is a member of M-of-N groups, where both M and N equal one." (Id. at
16.) The appellant argues, "Carter does not contemplate basing access on a function,
or on more than one group, or on a function of such groups." (Reply Br. at 4.)
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the claim at issue to determine its scope. Second, we determine
whether the construed claim is anticipated.
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). "[E]very limitation positively recited in a claim must be given effect in order
to determine what subject matter that claim defines." In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 450,
166 USPQ 545, 548 (CCPA 1970). "All words in a claim must be considered in judging
the patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson, 1424 F.2d 1382, 1385,
165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007