Appeal No. 95-3789 Page 5
Application No. 08/047,047
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. §§ 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). Accordingly, we will initially direct our attention
to appellants' independent claims 15 and 19 to derive an
understanding of the scope and content thereof.
Before turning to the proper construction of independent
claims 15 and 19, it is important to review some basic principles
of claim construction. First, and most important, the language
of the claim defines the scope of the protected invention. Yale
Lock Mfg. Co. v. Greenleaf, 117 U.S. 554, 559 (1886) ("The scope
of letters patent must be limited to the invention covered by the
claim, and while the claim may be illustrated it cannot be
enlarged by language used in other parts of the specification.");
Autogiro Co. of Am. v. United States, 384 F.2d 391, 396, 155 USPQ
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007