Appeal No. 2006-1692 Παγε 13
Application No. 10/068,243
all with varying physical properties, but the Examiner treats all
nylons as having the same physical properties.
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 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 7 to derive
an understanding of the scope and content thereof.
We find that the claim 7 language “the roller is fabricated
from a polymeric material” does not require that the roller is
fabricated from a monolithic block of stock material. Rather,
from the use of the transitional phrase “comprising,” and the
broad statement that the roller is fabricated from a polymeric
material, we find that the roller can be fabricated from more
than just a polymeric material, and can be fabricated from a
polymeric material along with other materials, such as metal. We
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007