Appeal No. 1996-3495
Application No. 08/321,941
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 initially direct our attention to
the term “miniaturized” in the appealed claims. This word is a
term of degree. Thus, there must be some standard or guideline
for measuring that degree when the claim language is read in
light of the specification as required in Seattle Box Co. v.
Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221
USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellant’s specification (see pages 3 and 5) makes it
clear that the module containing the GPS receiver is required
to be small enough to be hidden or concealed on a person’s
body or, in appellant’s words, “concealment on the person”
(specification, page 3) (e.g., less than 10 cubic inches as
recited in original claim 13, “on the order of two inches
square, more or less, with a thickness of one-half inch, more
or less” (specification, page 7)). Thus, when read in light of
the specification, the recitation that the module is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007