Appeal No. 1997-1414
Application 08/406,706
II. Claims 1-14 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Saunders, Marui, or Kadowaki.
After careful consideration of the rejections before us, the prior art, the arguments
presented by appellants and the examiner, we reverse rejections I and II.
A.
The decisional process begins with an analysis of a key legal question--what is the
invention claimed? Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Manufacturing Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1566-
1568, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1052 (1987). "Claim
interpretation, in light of the specification, claim language, other claims, and prosecution
history, is a matter of law and normally will control the remainder of the decisional process”
(footnote omitted) Id. In the present appeal, a key question in determining what is being
claimed is whether the words “infrared spectrally sensitized” in the preamble give “life and
meaning” and provide further positive limitations to the invention claimed. Corning Glass
Works v. Sumitomo Electric U.S.A. Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257, 9 USPQ2d 1962, 1966
(Fed. Cir. 1989); citing Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal Ltd., 781 F.2d 861, 866, 228 USPQ 90,
92 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and Perkins-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp. 732 F.2d 888, 896,
221 USPQ 669, 675 (Fed. Cir.) cert. denied, 469 U. S. 857 (1984). If the body of the claim
fully and intrinsically sets forth the complete invention, including all of its limitations, and the
preamble offers no distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, but rather
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007