Appeal 2006-3247
Application 10/345,055
The Appellants argue that "the Specification as a whole . . . generally
defines a contact images sensor as a compact pre-aligned optical assembly
that has performance characteristics that are independent of the length of the
contact image sensor. However, Wack does not teach that any of the optical
systems described therein have any of these characteristics." (Appeal Br. 9.)
Therefore, the issue is whether Wack teaches the claim's contact image
sensor.
"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 would have been
obvious." Ex Parte Massingill, No. 2003-0506, 2004 WL 1646421, at *2
(B.P.A.I. 2004).
IV. 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)). Although
"[c]laims must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part,"
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013