Appeal No. 97-2222
Application 08/380,661
ATWELL, it is the extremities of the bars 5, 6 which
are only lightly secured to the nails (page 1, lines
95-97). [Brief, pages 4 and 5.]
We are unpersuaded by the appellant's arguments. The
terminology in a pending application's claims is to be given
its broadest reasonable interpretation (see In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)) and
limitations from a pending application's specification will
not be read into the claims (see Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d
1573, 1581-82, 6 USPQ2d 2020, 2027 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
Moreover, anticipation by a prior art reference does not
require either the inventive concept of the claimed subject
matter or the recognition of inherent properties that may be
possessed by the prior art reference. See Verdegaal Bros.,
Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054
(Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). A prior
art reference anticipates the subject matter of
a claim when that reference discloses every feature of the
claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently (see Hazani
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007