Appeal No. 2005-0247 Page 6
Application No. 10/171,657
(Appeal Br. at 8.) In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step
analysis. First, we construe the representative claim 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, "the Board must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction. . . ." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000). "Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989)).
Here, claim 13 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "each of said
heating elements generating an annular bubble with balanced distribution within said
cavity, said annular bubbles each having a virtual chamber formed within the
corresponding annular bubbles. . . ." Giving the representative claim its broadest,
reasonable construction, the limitations require generating an annular shaped bubble
having a space in its middle.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007