Appeal No. 1999-1747 Page 6
Application No. 08/715,422
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 6-9) that the claims
under appeal are directed to the combination of a brake hose,
a brake tube and a quick connect coupling. The examiner has
determined (final rejection, p. 3) that the claims under
appeal are directed only to the quick connect coupling having
the intended use of coupling a brake hose to a brake tube.
Thus, before addressing the examiner's rejections based upon
prior art, it is an essential prerequisite that the claimed
subject matter be fully understood. Accordingly, we will 4
initially direct our attention to appellant's claim 1 (the
only independent claim on appeal) to derive an understanding
of the scope and content thereof.
However, before turning to the proper construction of
claim 1, we believe it is important to review some basic
principles of claim construction. First, and most important,
4Analysis 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, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007