Appeal No. 96-0079
Application No. 08/114,391
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Before addressing the examiner's rejection 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).
The general rule is that terms in claims are to be given
their ordinary and accustomed meaning, unless it appears that the
inventor used them differently. See Envirotech Corp. v. Al
George, Inc., 730 F.2d 753, 759, 221 USPQ 473, 477 (Fed. Cir.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007