Appeal No. 2003-2165 Page 6
Application No. 09/067,093
The appellant argues that the combination of references would not have suggested "the
claimed elements for storing and verifying a sporting ticket after it has been purchased."
(Appeal Br. at 15.)
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). In answering the question, "every 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).
Here, claim 20 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "decision means
including a self-contained means for determining by said portable card if said event
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007