Appeal No. 95-0972 Page 5
Application No. 07/650,453
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 of
independent claim 1, it is an essential prerequisite that the
claimed subject matter be fully understood. Analysis of
whether a claim is patentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103
begins with a determination of the scope of the claim. 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 claim 1 to derive an understanding of the scope
and content thereof.
Before turning to the proper construction of claim 1, it
is important to review some basic principles of claim
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007