Appeal No. 2004-0927 Page 5
Application No. 09/399,064
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). Here, claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "providing a
computer implemented-content authoring tool (CI-CAT) to a content creator, the CI-CAT
including an identification function for embedding control information in a content
created using the CI-CAT, to facilitate compensating a developer of the CI-CAT. . . ."
Claims 11, 18, 24, 25, and 34 recite similar limitations. Accordingly, claims 1, 11, 18,
24, 25, and 34 require a computer implemented tool for authoring content.
2. ANTICIPATION AND OBVIOUSNESS DETERMINATIONS
"Having construed the claim limitations at issue, we now compare the claims to
the prior art to determine if the prior art anticipates those claims." In re Cruciferous
Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002). "A claim
is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either
expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros., Inc.
v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing
Structural Rubber Prods. Co. v. Park Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 707, 715, 223 USPQ 1264,
1270 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007