Appeal No. 2000-0528
Application No. 09/209,702
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 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).
Further, it is well settled that terms in a claim should be construed as those skilled in the art
would construe them. See Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 986, 6
USPQ2d 1601, 1604 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016, 194 USPQ
187, 194 (CCPA 1977).
Each of the claims on appeal requires a first "fishing line release" and a second "fishing
line release." We understand "fishing line release" to be a term of art which would be
recognized by one of ordinary skill in the field of the appellant's invention as a clamp or similar
structure which holds a fishing line but which is designed to release the line upon application of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007