Appeal 2007-0732
Application 09/799,502
"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
"[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
1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Here, claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations:
"a certification data storing unit storing data required for the user to log into
said application server when said application server has its original
certifying system. . . ." Because the limitations do not recite, “storing data
required for the user to log into said application server [only] when said
application server has its original certifying system,” these limitations
always require the unit to store data independent of the subsequent need for
the data or use of the data. Giving the representative claim the broadest,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013