Appeal No. 2006-1332 Page 6
Application No. 09/548,687
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)).
Here, claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "identifying an
appropriate processor in the multi-processor storage controller to process the request. .
. ." Giving the representative claim its broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations
require identifying an appropriate processor to service a request.
2. Anticipation Determination
"Having construed the claim limitations at issue, we now compare the claims to
the prior art to determine if the prior art anticipates those claims." In re Cruciferous
Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
"[A]nticipation is a question of fact." Hyatt, 211 F.3d at 1371, 54 USPQ2d at 1667
(citing Bischoff v. Wethered, 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 812, 814-15 (1869); In re Schreiber, 128
F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). "A reference anticipates a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007