Appeal No. 2006-1145 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/143,977
We begin our analysis with claim construction. 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
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 direct our attention to
appellant’s claim 1 to derive an understanding of the scope and
content thereof.
We find that the claim language “for protection of a door or
window opening having an upper frame and a lower frame” does not
recite the window or door opening in combination with the
adjustable apparatus. Rather, the claim is directed to an
adjustable apparatus for protection of a door or window opening.
Because the window or door is not claimed in combination with the
apparatus, we agree with the examiner (answer, page 5) that the
window or door with upper and lower frame is an intended use for
the claimed apparatus. Thus, to meet the language of claim 1, it
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007