Appeal No. 2004-1316 Page 5
Application No. 09/241,276
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). In answering the question, "[t]he Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) must
consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the
prior art." In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582, 32 USPQ2d 1021, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
(citing In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Here, claim 92 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "automatically
filling in at least some data fields of a metadata template by using a mapping table to
retrieve the metadata for the data fields from a preexisting database, the mapping table
mapping at least a portion of the data fields of the metadata template to locations within
the database where the corresponding metadata can be found. . . ." Claims 45, 54, 63,
71, 75, and 91 include similar limitations. Considering these limitations, claims 45, 54,
63, 71, 75, 91, and 92 require storing metadata in a database, referencing a table that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007