Appeal No. 2002-0419
Application No. 08/457,732
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by 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 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 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 appellant's claim to derive an understanding of the scope and
content thereof.
Before turning to the proper construction of the claims, it is important to review
some basic principles of claim construction. First, and most important, the language of
the claim defines the scope of the protected invention. Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v.
Greenleaf, 117 U.S. 554, 559 (1886) ("The scope of letters patent must be limited to
the invention covered by the claim, and while the claim may be illustrated it cannot be
enlarged by language used in other parts of the specification."); Autogiro Co. of Am. v.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007