Appeal No. 96-2631
Application No. 08/177,616
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. It is
our conclusion that Allen is insufficient to establish
obviousness with respect to claims 1 through 27. Accordingly, we
will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this determination
follows.
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. §§ 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. See Smithkline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena
Laboratories Corp., 859 F.2d 878, 882, 8 USPQ2d 1468, 1472 (Fed.
Cir. 1988). Furthermore, it is axiomatic that, in proceedings
before the PTO, claims in an application are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and that claim language should be read in light of
the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
skill in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007