Appeal No. 94-3022
Application 07/855,490
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellant’s claim 1 recites, in part, “a substrate biased at
a first potential; and interconnecting metal conductors biased at
a second potential different from said first potential.”
[Emphasis added.] Independent claim 13 recites “a substrate
biased at a first potential; and . . . a plurality of elongated
interconnecting conductors disposed on said substrate and held at
a second potential.” [Emphasis added.]
In support for his position that the reference anticipates
the claimed biasing of the conductor at a potential different
from that of the substrate, the Examiner relies on Hillenius’
statement (column 3, lines 43 through 46) that “[t]he use of a
bias on the conductive layer 30 that is identical to the
potential of the underlying tub is not essential but the use of
identical potentials will not result in any yield loss due to
occasional shorts through the thin oxide layer 31.” [Answer, page
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007