Appeal No. 96-1705
Application No. 08/296,269
level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested
to one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the
invention as set forth in claims 2-6. Accordingly, we
reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 8 and 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Lim or under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Lim. 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 as well as disclosing structure which is
capable of performing the recited functional limitations. RCA
Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440,
1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S.
1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.,
721 F.2d 1540, 1554,
220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984).
The examiner indicates how he reads claims 8 and 9 on
Lim on pages 3-4 of the answer. There, the examiner asserts
that “[a]s seen in Figure 2b, the degree of thickness of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007