Appeal 2007-0870
Reissue Application 09/902,904
Patent 6,038,784
v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053
(Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987); RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
"Absence from the reference of any claimed element negates anticipation."
Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571, 230 USPQ 81,
84 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The doctrine of inherency may not be used to establish
anticipation unless a prior inherency can be established as a certainty.
Probabilities or possibilities will not be sufficient to establish an inherent
event. Continental Can Co. U.S.A., Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264,
1269, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
During examination, "claims are to given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification." In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544,
1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). "Generally, particular
limitations or embodiments appearing in the specification will not be read
into the claims." Enron GmbH v. ITC, 151 F.3d 1376, 1384, 47 USPQ2d
1725, 1731 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal Ltd., 781
F.2d 861, 867, 228 USPQ 90, 93 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Furthermore, when the
claim limitation in issue involves a means plus function clause, proper claim
interpretation requires that such a claim "shall be construed to cover the
corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and
equivalents thereof." 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph; In re Bond, 910 F.2d
831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (referring to the
specification to interpret the scope of a means plus function claim when
reviewing a finding of anticipation); In re Iwahashi, 888 F.2d 1375, 1379
n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1908, 1912 n1. (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("Section 112 Para. 6
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013