Appeal No. 2002-0592
Application No. 09/107,090
place object corresponding to the data target; and a first set of object methods to
transfer the data from the data source to the data target, at least one of the first set of
object methods being extensible by a user, as recited in independent claim 1. (See
brief at pages 3-6.) Additionally, appellants question the examiner’s statement of the
rejection in the final rejection with respect to what “mechanism for such an object
oriented framework” the examiner refers to and appellants request clarification. (See
brief at pages 4-5.) We agree with appellants that the examiner’s statement of the
rejection in the final rejection and incorporated into the answer, is unclear as to what
“mechanism” the examiner refers to. From our review of the answer, we find that the
examiner merely incorporates the statement of the rejection and proceeds to ramble on
about the word “defining” and NEVER addresses the request for clarification of the
statement of the rejection and NEVER addresses appellants’ arguments directly.
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 appellants' claim to derive an
understanding of the scope and content thereof.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007