Appeal No. 96-3999 Page 6
Application No. 08/395,719
Thus, before deciding this rejection, 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
now direct our attention to appellant's claim 1 to derive an
understanding of the scope and content thereof.
Claim 1 recites "[a] first stackable container . . .
comprising: a hollow cylinder having an integral top wall and an
integral bottom wall, a tubular mouth member formed integral with
the top wall and centrally located on the top wall coaxial with
the hollow cylinder, . . . ; said bottom wall having a circular
well centrally formed therein coaxial with said cylinder and
extending upwardly into the interior of said cylinder, and said
well having a selected diameter to receive the tubular mouth
member of a second like container to enable the first container
to be stacked on top of the second container; a cover having an
internally threaded annular skirt portion removably mounted on
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007