Appeal No. 98-2069
Application No. 29/052,369
patent may more readily and accurately determine the
boundaries of protection in evaluating the possibility of
infringement and dominance. See In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378,
1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208 (CCPA 1970).
Another fundamental purpose of a claim is to define the
scope of the claim. 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).
We appreciate that Seattle Box, Shatterproof Glass and
the other cases cited above involved utility applications
rather than design applications. Nevertheless, we think that
the court's underlying rationale applies regardless of whether
the claim in question appears in a utility application or a
design application. See Ex parte Pappas, 23 USPQ2d 1636, 1638
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007