Appeal No. 2005-0015 Page 4
Application No. 09/788,274
thermistor is related to ambient temperature, thereby causing the signal output from the
circuit to be simulative2 of a selected temperature (i.e., ambient temperature) below that
of an anticipated temperature of the leaked liquid.3
We appreciate that appellant’s disclosed invention differs from that of the
Ketchum patent in that it utilizes only one temperature sensor and substitutes circuitry
which is independent of ambient temperature. These features, however, are not
recited in claim 1 and thus cannot be relied upon for patentability.4
In light of the above, appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of any error on
the part of the examiner in concluding that the subject matter of claim 1 is anticipated5
by Ketchum. We thus sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2 and 3 which
appellant has not argued separately apart from claim 1 (see In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
2 The term “simulate” is generally understood to mean “to give a false indication or appearance of;
pretend; feign” or “to have or take on the external appearance of; look or act like.” Webster's New World
Dictionary, Third College Edition (Simon & Schuster, Inc. 1988).
3 Note that Ketchum discloses in column 2, lines 32-33, that the temperature of leakage fluid is
higher than ambient.
4 It is well established that limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for
patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982) and 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).
5 Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under
the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In other words, there must be
no difference between the claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of
ordinary skill in the field of the invention. Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d
1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991). It is not necessary that the reference teach what
the subject application teaches, but only that the claim read on something disclosed in the reference, i.e.,
that all of the limitations in the claim be found in or fully met by the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly Clark
Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007