Appeal No. 2005-0100 Page 4
Application No. 09/962,744
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe independent claims at issue to determine their scope. Second, we
determine whether the construed claims are anticipated or would have been obvious.
A. 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). "Claims are not interpreted in a vacuum, but are part of and are read in light
of the specification." Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc., 810 F.2d 1113, 1116, 1
USPQ2d 1563, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Anti-bodies,
Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1385, 231 USPQ 81, 94-95 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Mattison, 509
F.2d 563, 565, 184 USPQ 484, 486 (CCPA 1975)).
Here, claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "receiving a query
request, the query request containing a geographic location input parameter, . . .
obtaining the direct marketing area corresponding to the geographic location input
parameter, if possible; and . . . replacing the geographic location input parameter with
the direct marketing area. . . ." (Emphasis added.) Claims 6, 10, 15, 23, 31, and 35
recite similar limitations.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007