Appeal No. 2006-1951 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/392,140
We begin with claim construction. 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. § 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). "[R]esort must be had in the first
instance to the words of the claim" and words "will be given
their ordinary and accustomed meaning, unless it appears that the
inventor used them differently." Envirotech Corp. v. Al George,
Inc., 730 F.2d 753, 759, 221 USPQ 473, 477 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
With respect to the term “sink” as it appears in the
preamble of claim 10, we note that “where a patentee defines a structurally
complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or
intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation.” Rowe v. Dror,
112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “The determination of
whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or
use ‘can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the patent to gain an
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007