Appeal No. 2006-0909 Page 9
Application No. 09/282,320
whether the construed claim would have been obvious." Ex Parte Massingill, No. 2003-
0506, 2004 WL 1646421, at *2 (Bd.Pat.App & Int. May 20, 2004).
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 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)). "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 18 does not recite that a mirror be movably arranged at an angle to
the camera. The representative claim merely recites in pertinent part the following
limitations: "attaching the mirror to an external surface of the camera . . . ." Giving
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007