Appeal No. 2004-2127 Page 5
Application No. 09/441,693
conditionally decrementing a revenue figure for lost units of traffic, wherein the condition
depends on network state." (Appeal Br. at 6.)
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the 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 2 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "determining for
each of two or more consecutive time windows whether the network is compliant or
non-compliant . . . and . . . for each of said time windows, accruing a negative revenue
increment for each unit of offered bandwidth that is lost while the network is
noncompliant. . . ." Claim 3 recites similar limitations. Considering these limitations,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007