Ex parte FISHER et al. - Page 4





                     Appeal No. 1998-1927                                                                                                                                              
                     Application No. 08/703,276                                                                                                                                        



                                With regard to the first argued distinction, the examiner's position appears to be that the                                                            

                     inner surface of the spherically configured sensing coil 121 and reference coil 122 is concave                                                                    

                     and, thus, inherently has a focal point associated therewith (answer, pages 5 and 7).  The                                                                        

                     appellants do not contest this assertion by the examiner, but urge that Fisher "fails to disclose or                                                              

                     teach detection restricted to energy on the concave surface originating at its focal point" (reply                                                                

                     brief, page 1).                                                                                                                                                   

                                It is well established that limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for                                                          

                     patentability.  In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982).  Moreover, limitations                                                                

                     are not to be read into the claims from the specification.  In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26                                                              

                     USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993) citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320,                                                                         

                     1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).                                                                                                                                            

                                Having carefully reviewed the terminology of claim 1, we fail to perceive any limitation                                                               

                     that the detection performed by the sensing means be restricted to energy originating at the                                                                      

                     focal point of the concave surface as the appellants' argument would suggest.  The sensing coil                                                                   

                     121 of the acoustic sensor disclosed in the Fisher patent, as we understand it, will detect any                                                                   


                                3(...continued)                                                                                                                                        
                     Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).  In other words, there must be no difference between                                               
                     the claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the field of the                                                   
                     invention.  Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed.                                                   
                     Cir. 1991).  It is not necessary that the reference teach what the subject application teaches, but only that the claim                                           
                     read on something disclosed in the reference, i.e., that all of the limitations in the claim be found in or fully met by                                          
                     the reference.  Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.                                                      
                     denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                          4                                                                                            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007