Appeal No. 2006-0673 Page 7
Application No. 09/919,555
define the 'saving step' of the claimed method. Accordingly, the instructions
themselves do carry patentable weight." (Id.) They further argue that Cattell '915
"discloses the use of 'biological function information,' such as array layout information,
rather than instructions for selecting one or more machine readable algorithms for
use by a processor on how to read an array or how to process data from a read array."
(Id. at 16.)
"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 is anticipated." Ex parte Pittaro, No. 2005-
2057, 2006 WL 1665401, at *2 (Bd.Pat.App & Int. 2006)
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 PTO gives claims their 'broadest reasonable
interpretation.'" In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir.
2000)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007