Appeal No. 1997-1513
Application No. 08/249,736
inherently limited to polarizing films having all of the above
capabilities. However, none of these objects or features are
expressly set forth in any appealed claim, and we will not
construe the claims as so limited. It has been consistently
held that no limitation of the specification should be read
into a claim where no express statement of the limitation is
included in the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05,
162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969). Appellants further argue
that since Ogino does not disclose the specific combination of
dye groups required by the claimed invention, Ogino cannot
make the presently claimed invention prima facie obvious.
However, even assuming that Ogino did not expressly disclose
that two or more dye compounds from his formula (I) dyes could
be combined in his invention, it would have been prima facie
obvious to combine the dyes in the manner claimed by
appellants (i.e., the combination of dyes of formula group I,
group [A], and group [B]) because it is prima facie obvious to
combine two or more components or two or more compositions
each of which is taught by the prior art to be individually
useful for the same purpose to form a third composition which
is to be used for the very same purpose. In re Susi, 440 F.2d
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007