Appeal No. 2004-0984
Application No. 09/501,970 Page 7
Thus, each recess includes a plurality of buttons, which operate
the same function of the radio unit of the acoustical headset.
Appellant adds that by providing separate recesses for each
function, the user can readily feel, without looking, where his
fingers should be to operate the button set.
Before addressing the examiner's rejection 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
appellant’s claim 6 to derive an understanding of the scope and
content thereof.
Before turning to the proper construction of the claim, 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007