Appeal No. 2002-0672
Application No. 09/158,715
prior art. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320,
1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551, 190
USPQ 461, 463 (CCPA 1976); In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548, 190
USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976). Limitations, however, are not to be
read from the specification into the claims. See In re Prater,
415 F.2d 1393, 1405, 162 USPQ 541, 551 (CCPA 1969).
The appellant’s specification (page 2) and Lesieur (col. 1,
lines 18-20) indicate that the prior art fuel cell power plant
steam reformers used catalyst in pellet form. The appellant’s
claim 1 claims a catalyst block. This catalyst block, the
appellant states, resists the prior art catalyst pellets’
slumping and crushing because, unlike those pellets, the catalyst
block resists downward settling in the reformer chamber when the
reformer walls expand (specification, page 2). The broadest
reasonable interpretation of “catalyst block” in view of the
specification and prior art, therefore, is that it means a block
of catalyst which, unlike catalyst pellets, resists downward
settling in a reformer chamber.
“Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in
issue be disclosed, either expressly or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference.” Corning Glass Works
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007