Appeal No. 96-3841 Page 5
Application No. 08/093,664
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. Smithkline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Labs.
Corp., 859 F.2d 878, 882, 8 USPQ2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Accordingly, we will initially direct our attention to each of
the independent claims on appeal (i.e., claims 1, 23 and 26).
These claims each recite that the deodorizing apparatus includes,
inter alia, an active carbon honeycomb and a phosphoric acid-
supporting active carbon honeycomb disposed in that order in a
gas duct in the direction from the suction port to the exhaust
port.
An issue presented by this recitation in each of the
independent claims on appeal is can "the active carbon honeycomb"
which precedes "the phosphoric acid-supporting active carbon
honeycomb" be a chemical-supporting active carbon honeycomb?
More specifically, would this recitation be interpreted as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007