Appeal 2007-1059
Application 10/408,598
art reference. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346, 51
USPQ2d 1943, 1945 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“In other words, if granting patent
protection on the disputed claim would allow the patentee to exclude the
public from practicing the prior art, then that claim is anticipated, regardless
of whether it also covers subject matter not in the prior art.”) (internal
citations omitted).
ANALYSIS
A. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
As set forth above, representative claim 1 requires directing an extracted
diffraction order for each signal to a power monitor. Our reviewing court
states in In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989) that “claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably
allow.” Our reviewing court further states that "the words of a claim 'are
generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.'" Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(en banc) (internal citations omitted). The "ordinary and customary meaning
of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of
ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the
effective filing date of the patent application." Id. at 1313, 75 USPQ2d at
1326.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013