Appeal No. 96-3841 Page 5 Application No. 08/093,664 Before addressing the examiner's rejections based upon prior art, it is an essential prerequisite that the claimed subject matter be fully understood. Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 begins with a determination of the scope of the claim. The properly interpreted claim must then be compared with the prior art. Claim interpretation must begin with the language of the claim itself. Smithkline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Labs. Corp., 859 F.2d 878, 882, 8 USPQ2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Accordingly, we will initially direct our attention to each of the independent claims on appeal (i.e., claims 1, 23 and 26). These claims each recite that the deodorizing apparatus includes, inter alia, an active carbon honeycomb and a phosphoric acid- supporting active carbon honeycomb disposed in that order in a gas duct in the direction from the suction port to the exhaust port. An issue presented by this recitation in each of the independent claims on appeal is can "the active carbon honeycomb" which precedes "the phosphoric acid-supporting active carbon honeycomb" be a chemical-supporting active carbon honeycomb? More specifically, would this recitation be interpreted asPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007