Appeal No. 1999-0422 Page 4
Application No. 08/628,805
Before addressing the examiner's rejections based upon
prior art, it is essential 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, 1472
(Fed. Cir. 1988). Accordingly, we will initially direct our
attention to appellants' claim 9 to derive an understanding of
the scope and content thereof.
Claim 9 recites a heat exchanger comprising a base
section and cooling fins attached to and projecting out from
the base section, with each fin being secured in a groove in
the base section. Further, the fins are profiled, at least in
the region where they join the base section, into a wavy form
such that the distance between two planes defined by the wave
peaks of the wavy profile "corresponds approximately" to the
width of the grooves.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007