Appeal No. 2002-0510 Page 14
Application No. 09/139,309
explicitly and inherently. . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386, 59 USPQ2d 1693,
1697(Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ
459, 467 (1966); In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 998, 50 USPQ 1614, 1616 (Fed. Cir.
1999); In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
Here, Xu discloses "an electrical overstress pulse protection composite 62. . . ."
Col. 5, ll. 30-31. We find that the electrical overstress pulse protection composite is
spread out in, and covers the side and bottom surfaces, of an opening. Specifically,
"each of the openings 43 in the cover 41 is filled with an electrical overstress pulse
protection composite 62 (see FIG. 12). . . . The composite is applied in a sufficiently
fluid state as to enter the space 34. . . ." Id. at ll. 29-33.
Second, the examiner asserts that Xu discloses "polymer 41, in contact with
variable voltage material 62. . . ." (Examiner's Answer at 6.) The appellants argue,
"[c]over (41) does not overlie composite material (62) and plays no role during actual
over-voltage protection operation." (Appeal Br. at 14.)
"[L]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 5
specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "a layer of neat dielectric polymer or
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007