Appeal No. 2005-0142 Page 4
Application No. 09/904,246
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the claim at issue to determine its scope. Second, we determine
whether the construed claim 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). 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)).
Here, claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "a display panel
electrically coupled to said circuit board in face-to-face abutment substantially along a
plane; and an electrical connection including a first contact on said circuit board, a
second contact on said display panel, and a conductor coupling said first and second
contacts and extending generally along said plane." Giving the independent claim its
broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require a coupling conductor that
extends along a plane of face-to-face abutment.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007