Appeal No. 1998-0340
Application 08/449,682
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the
Examiner and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise,
reviewed Appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs.
It is our view that claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 are
anticipated by Inaba, while claim 4 is not obvious over Inaba.
Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
We now consider the two rejections.
In our analysis, we are guided by the precedence of our
reviewing court. Claims are to be construed in the light of
Appellant’s disclosure and not in a vacuum. However, 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,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007