Appeal No. 1999-0286 Page 5
Application No. 08/777,413
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. Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it
is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner is
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the claims under appeal. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4 to 6 and 9
to 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this
determination follows.
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. § 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 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007