Appeal 2007-1916
Application 10/753,113
6. The Specification teaches that: “In accordance with the present invention,
the vibration detection operation and motion detection operation are
combined to determine whether an aversive stimulus signal should be
produced between electrodes 5B and 5C.” (Specification 15:18–16:1). It
further instructs the reader to: “Note that it is important that the dog not
receive stimulus due to motion alone, because detecting of motion
through the motion sensor 40 does not accurately determine the
occurrence of valid barking.” (Specification 26:7-9).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the
claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2
USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). Analysis
of whether a claim is patentable over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 begins
with a determination of the scope of the claim. The properly interpreted claim
must then be compared with the prior art.
We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications “not solely on
the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable
construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75
USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(en banc) (quoting In re Am. Acad. of Sci.
Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). We
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013