Appeal No. 2006-3280
Application No. 09/874,152
In order for us to decide the question of obviousness,
“[t]he first inquiry must be into exactly what the claims
define.” In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 450, 166 USPQ 545, 548
(CCPA 1970). “Analysis begins with a key legal question-- what
is the invention claimed?”...Claim interpretation...will normally
control the remainder of the decisional process.” Panduit Corp.
v. Dennison Mfg., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567-68, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597
(Fed. Cir. 1987).
We note that representative claim 1 reads in part as
follows:
[D]etermining that the subscriber line is not busy
by dialing the subscriber line from the intelligent
peripheral.
We note at page 13, lines 10 through 13, Appellants’
specification states the following:
Intelligent peripheral 42 places a busy check call
to subscriber line 116. The busy check call is dropped
if the busy check call is forwarded back to the
intelligent peripheral 42 from local switch 30.
Thus, the claim does require dialing the subscriber line
from the intelligent peripheral of the AIN telecommunications
system to determine whether the subscriber line is no longer
busy.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007