Appeal No. 2002-2082
Application No. 09/289,393 Page 7
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. § 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' independent claim 5 to derive an understanding of the
scope and content thereof.
We find that the claim language "wherein a plurality of
holes are provided in an outer peripheral portion of said
diaphragm portion which is other than a part located upstream of
said heating element so as to penetrate said diaphragm portion"
of claim 5 requires that there are no holes upstream of the
heating element. Turning to the prior art, we agree with the
examiner that the slits of Nagata can be considered "holes."
However, we agree with appellants that neither Nagata nor
Morimasa discloses having no holes upstream of the heating
element. In both references, holes are located both upstream and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007