Appeal No. 1998-0046 Page 3
Application No. 08/357,320
Reference is made to the brief (Paper No. 14) and reply
brief (Paper No. 16) and the answer (Paper No. 15) for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner with
regard to the merits of these rejections.
OPINION
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 based upon
prior art, it is an essential prerequisite that the claimed
subject matter be fully understood. 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,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007