Appeal No. 2002-0074 Page 14
Application No. 08/800,758
the moving structure. It is well settled that 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). In our view, as noted in the above paragraph, the limitation relied upon by the
appellants to distinguish over the teachings of Evans is readable on the arrangement of
Evans' system depicted in Figure 1. In that regard, the upper conveyor 50 of Evans'
pallet 24 "is positioned to enable the transfer of information processing apparatus" to a
corresponding one of the stringers 30 of the rack 20 (i.e., the stringers 30 which are
shown as receiving casket 22 from the upper conveyor 50) and the lower conveyor 50
of Evans' pallet 24 "is positioned to enable the transfer of information processing
apparatus" to a corresponding one of the stringers 30 of the rack 20 (i.e., the stringers
30 which are shown as receiving casket 22 from the lower conveyor 50).
As noted above, Evans does teach all the limitations of claim 11. While this is, in
effect, a holding that claim 11 is anticipated by Evans under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b),
affirmance of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is appropriate, since it is well settled that a
disclosure that anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders the claim unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for "anticipation is the epitome of obviousness." Jones v.
Hardy, 727 F.2d 1524, 1529, 220 USPQ 1021, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See also In re
Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982); In re Pearson, 494
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007