Appeal No. 2001-1306 Page 9
Application No. 08/100,019
R of Ames as a sealed package through which no light is permitted
to enter (answer, page 6).
Before addressing the Examiner’s rejection based upon prior
art, it is essential that we understand the claimed subject
matter and determine its scope. 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, as
required by our reviewing court, we will initially direct our
attention to Appellant’s claim 1 in order to determine its scope.
“[T]he name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150
F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Claims
will be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the specification, and limitations appearing in the
specification are not to be read into the claims. In re Etter,
756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Appellant’s claim 1 requires “[a] sealed package of
photographic film” comprising a “plurality of exposable
photographic frames” wherein each frame further comprises “a
first unexposed portion” and “a second exposed portion.”
Appellant would have us read “a sealed package” as limited to
films sealed only in a bag or similar containers. We decline to
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007