Appeal No. 1998-2372 Page 10
Application No. 08/639,815
“In the patentability context, claims are to be given
their broadest reasonable interpretations. 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)). Here, claim 4 specifies
in pertinent part the following limitations: "update
information is provided from a vehicle." Giving the claim its
broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations recite a
vehicle providing update information.
The prior art teaches the limitations. "[A] disclosure
that anticipates under Section 102 also renders the claim
invalid under Section 103, for 'anticipation is the epitome of
obviousness.'" Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d
1542, 1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting
In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 215 USPQ 569 (CCPA 1982)).
Obviousness follows ipso facto, moreover, from an anticipatory
reference. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc.,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007