Appeal No. 2002-0974
Application 09/332,745
because the subject matter therein claimed would have been
obvious from the combined disclosures of Asayama et al.
considered with Inoue et al. and Nakagawa et al. in further view
of Loncki et al., Miyashita et al. and Park et al.
OPINION
We begin by determining the scope and content of appellants'
claims because it is the claims which define the protection for
which appellants seek a patent. United Carbon Co. v. Binney &
Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 232, 55 USPQ 381, 383-384 (1942) (citing
General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364,
369, 37 USPQ 466, 468-469 (1938); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321,
322, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); SRI Int'l. v.
Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121, 227 USPQ 577, 586
(Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc).
Appellants' process is claimed as a process "comprising" the
combination of the various steps recited in the claims. As a
"comprising" claim, the claims do not exclude any other process
steps or ingredients disclosed in the prior art, including other
steps and ingredients disclosed but not claimed by appellants,
and those neither disclosed nor even contemplated by appellants.
In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686, 210 USPQ 795, 802 (CCPA 1981).
Thus, the process of claim 1 "comprises" three steps: (1)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007