Appeal No. 2004-0024
Application No. 09/249,922 Page 7
patentable over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 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. See Smithkline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Laboratories
Corp., 859 F.2d 878, 882, 8 USPQ2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
What we are dealing with in this case is the construction of the
limitations recited in the appealed claims. As stated by the
court in In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523,
1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) "[t]he name of the game is the claim."
Claims will be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, and limitations appearing in
the specification are not to be read into the claims. In re
Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Accordingly, we will initially direct our attention to
appellants' claim 1 to derive an understanding of the scope and
content thereof. We note at the outset that, as shown in figures
1 and 3 of Gaus, metal halide bulb 11 provides a point source of
light, and, as shown in the solid and dotted lines of figure 1,
the focal point of the light can be adjusted from being focused
at a spot to being dispersed. Upon adjusting the light between
being focused on a spot and being dispersed, the beam will
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007