Appeal No. 97-0754 Page 4
Application No. 08/408,478
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
8, mailed September 3, 1996) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 7, filed July 26, 1996) for the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
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 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007