Appeal No. 2005-2622 Page 2
Application No. 09/923,089
operator." (Examiner's Answer at 8.) The appellants argue that Clark's "ability to
perform different functions responsive to inputs from different sources (e.g., user panel
keypad 16 or operator panel keypad 27)," (Req. Reh'g at 3), "does not require (nor
teach or suggest) Applicants' recited features which include outputting different user
interfaces through different display devices on the banking machine, responsive to
separate determinations made by a processor in the machine as to the type or
capabilities of the particular input device associated with the corresponding display
device." (Id.)
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the 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). In answering the question, "[c]laims must be read in view of the
specification, of which they are a part." Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52
F.3d 967, 979, 34 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007