Appeal No. 2006-2284 Page 5
Application No. 09/912,211
frequency to generate said received signal energy of said selected
frequency,'' as claimed.
(App. Br.1 at 8.)
"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 would have been obvious."
Ex Parte Cuomo, No. 2003-0509, 2004 WL 4978831, at *2 (B.P.A.I. 2004).
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 "[t]he Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) must
consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the
prior art." In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
(citing In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
1 We refer to and rely on the appellants' "Second Appeal Brief," in lieu of their "Appeal
Brief," because the latter was rendered moot by a subsequent Office action filed June
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013