Appeal No. 98-1253
Application No. 08/249,931
Otani, we initially note that the terminology in a pending
application's claims is to be given its broadest reasonable
interpretation (In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and 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 (Sjolund v. Musland 847 F.2d 1573, 1581-82, 6
USPQ2d 2020, 2027 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). 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. Verdegaal Bros., Inc.
v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054
(Fed. Cir. 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 (In re Schreiber,, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d
1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and Hazani v. Int'l Trade Comm`n,
126 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997));
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007