Appeal 2007-0434
Application 10/041,207
at *2 (BPAI 2007). The Examiner asserts, "In column 4 lines 38-45, Squilla
discloses using icons or text to identify individual images and that the
individual icon or text is used to personalize or identify the pictures either by
category or individually (see also; column 9, lines 30-32)." (Answer 14.)
The Appellants argue, "Squilla never states (nor even implies), that the
identifiers should (or even could) uniquely identify each digital image for
network access." (Reply Br. 2.) Therefore, the issue is whether the
Examiner has shown that Squilla assigns to a digital image an identifier that
is unique to a network.
"Both anticipation under § 102 and obviousness under § 103 are two-
step inquiries. The first step in both analyses is a proper construction of the
claims. . . . The second step in the analyses requires a comparison of the
properly construed claim to the prior art." Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L.,
353 F.3d 928, 933, 69 USPQ2d 1283, 1286 (Fed.Cir. 2003) (internal
citations omitted).
A. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
"Our analysis begins with construing the claim limitations at issue."
Ex Parte Filatov, No. 2006-1160, 2007 WL 1317144, at *2 (BPAI 2007).
"[T]he 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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013