Appeal No. 1999-1765 Page 5
Application No. 08/839,193
(Paper No. 25, filed December 2, 1998) for the appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants’ specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow. In accordance with appellants’
“GROUPING OF CLAIMS” (brief, p. 4), we need only comment on
independent claims 1 and 12. Dependent claims 10 and 11 will
stand or fall with independent claim 1.
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. §§ 102
and 103 begins with a determination of the scope of the claim.
The properly interpreted claim must then be compared with the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007