Appeal No. 2005-1997 Page 7
Application No. 09/493,319
is disclosed in Nakajima. ln fact, modification of Nakajima's integrated
display device, as contended by the Examiner, would arguably result in
more cost and complexity in Nakajima's device, as each memory 22 would
serve more than one pixel. Thus, contrary to the Examiner's position,
arguably cost and complexity would be added to Nakajima's display
device by the proposed modification.
(Appeal Br. at 9.)
"In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the representative claim at issue to determine its scope. Second, we
determine whether the construed claim would have been obvious." Ex Parte Massingill,
No. 2003-0506, 2004 WL 1646421, at *2 (Bd.Pat.App & Int. 2004).
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, "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)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007