Appeal No. 97-0445
Application 08/170,020
obvious over the suggested various combinations of Hasegawa,
Kobayashi and Amar. Accordingly, we affirm in part.
We take up these rejections in the order they appear
in the brief. In our analysis below, we are guided by the
precedence of our reviewing court that the limitations from
the
disclosure are not to be imported into the claims. In re
Lundberg, 244 F.2d 543, 113 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1957); In re
Queener, 796 F.2d 461, 230 USPQ 438 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We are
also mindful of the requirements of anticipation under 35
U.S.C. § 102. Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is
established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
either expressly or under the principles of inherency, each
and every element of a claimed invention. See RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221
USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228
(1984).
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007