Appeal No. 2005-0439 Page 6
Application No. 09/106,994
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the representative 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, "[c]laims 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:
storage locations located in the array to store the indications from the pixel
sensor and each storage location being designated for a different one of
the primary color components of the image; and
for each pixel sensor, circuitry to, during a first integration interval, couple
the pixel sensor to one of the associated storage locations to store one of
the indications from the sensor and, during a second integration interval,
couple the pixel sensor to another one of the storage locations to store
another one of the indications from the sensor.
Claims 6 and 18 recite similar limitations. For its part, claim 22 recites in pertinent part
the following limitations: "at least two integration devices for each pixel sensor, each
integration device being designated to provide a value for a different primary color."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007