Appeal No. 2006-0486 Page 7
Application No. 10/300,916
First, the examiner must give the appealed claims their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification. In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Concerning this matter, we emphasize
that, in making a patentability determination, analysis must
begin with the question, “What is the invention claimed?” since
“[c]laim interpretation . . . will normally control the remainder
of the decisional process.” Panduit v. Dennison, 810 F.2d 1561,
1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S.
1052 (1987).
Neither the answer nor the final office action contains any
express claim interpretation by the examiner. Nevertheless,
based on the § 103 rejections discussed above, the examiner seems
to have implicitly interpreted the appealed claims as including a
retractable landing gear. However, this interpretation is
inconsistent with the fact that each of the six independent
claims on appeal is directed to a noise reduction apparatus
rather than such an apparatus in combination with a retractable
landing gear. If the appealed claims are not directed to the
combination of a noise reduction apparatus with a retractable
landing gear, it is necessary to assess what, if any, limiting
effect is provided by such claim language as the claim 1
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007