Appeal No. 1999-0635 4
Application No. 08/688,825
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 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 5 to derive an understanding of
the scope and content thereof.
Claim 5 reads as follows:
An extensible doorway barrier for deterring
passage through an opening of a door, the door
mounted to a door frame, said barrier comprising:
(...continued)3
correction in the event of further prosecution before the examiner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007