Appeal No. 2000-0710
Serial No. 08/788,959
We will not read subject matter of the specification into
the claims as broadly suggested to us by appellants at page 3,
lines 17-19, of the brief. Before an application is granted,
there is no reason to read into a claim the limitations of the
specification. 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).
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Claims 1, 4 and 22
We will consider the rejection of these claims, and claims
3, 5-9, 20 and 21, over the prior art even though the claims have
been found unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as incomplete. The claims recite specific elements and we will
determine whether or not these elements and their structural
relationships, to the extent claimed, are taught by the prior art
relied on by the examiner.
We will not sustain this rejection.
The sole point of contention with respect to these claims is
to be found with respect to the recitation in claim 1 which reads
“… without a pattern shift between said piezoelectric thin film
and said electrode.” Appellants’ specification indicates that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007