Appeal No. 95-5097
Application No. 08/072,807
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, every limitation of a claim must
identically appear in a single reference for it to anticipate
the claim. [Citation omitted].” Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d
1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Implicit
in our review of the examiner’s anticipation analysis is that
the claim must first have been correctly construed to define
the scope and meaning of each contested limitation. Gechter
v. Davidson, supra; In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31
USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
As a matter of claim construction, it is well settled
that the transitory word “comprising” means that the named
elements are essential but other elements may be added and
still form a construct within the scope of the claim.
Genentech Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d
1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686-
87, 210 USPQ 795, 802-03 (CCPA 1981); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ
448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948).
It is also well settled that during patent examination,
claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms
reasonably allow. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d
1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007