Appeal No. 96-3101
Application 08/020,570
section of the brief, is without merit because it is well
established patent law that features not claimed may not be
relied upon to support patentability. See In re Self, 671 F.2d
1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982) and In re Richards, 187
F.2d 643, 644-45, 89 USPQ 64, 66 (CCPA 1951).
Appellant’s argument on page 26 of the brief that the
European patent document ?does not . . . . have hydrophilic
and hydrophobic image points? is also without merit. In the
first place, none of the appealed claims requires that the
image points or ?regions,? as they are called in the claims, be
hydrophilic or hydrophobic. Accordingly, this feature also may
not be relied upon to support patentability. Id.
Furthermore, contrary to appellant’s argument, the
European patent document does disclose that the image points
or ?domains,? as they are called in this patent document,
become hydrophobic upon being depolarized and, conversely,
hydrophilic upon being polarized. See column 2, lines 40-49 of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007