Appeal No. 2004-2267 Page 5
Application No. 09/651,184
is supplied to the client if the changes were made after the snapshot time being used by
the client. The change of LOB data stores in the memory in a specific location
(temporary) (see col. 7, lines 25-34, Fig. 1)." (Id. at 8-9.) The appellant argues, "[t]here
is simply no relationship between the time period a user waits in the waiting list before
being removed from that waiting list and the providing of consistent views by taking a
snapshot and then stripping away later-made changes." (Appeal Br. at 10.)
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 are anticipated.
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 1031, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
(citing In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007