Appeal No. 2003-2136 Page 9
Application No. 09/562,952
a. 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). In answering the question, "the Board must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction. . . ." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Here, claim 7 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "a surface area of
the flat end surface of the center electrode, to which the noble metal chip is directly
attached, being larger than a surface area of the noble area chip which is directly
attached to the flat end surface of the center electrode. . . ." Giving the representative
claim its broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require that the surface area
of a noble metal chip be smaller than the surface area of an electrode to which it is
attached.
b. Obviousness Determination
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. The question of obviousness is
"based on underlying factual determinations including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches
explicitly and inherently. . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386, 59 USPQ2d 1693,
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007