Appeal No. 1998-0338
Application No. 08/350,865
(Emphasis added.) (Specification page 8, line 35 to page 9,
line 4.)
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 12, and likewise claims 13, 17 and 18 which
stand or fall therewith.
As pointed out by Appellant, claim 14 requires the “means
for transferring” to be a volume of oxide which contacts the
foundation layer. As also pointed out by Appellant, this
requires an opening in the lower conductive plate, not shown
by APA (reply brief-page 4).
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under
§ 102 can 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). "Anticipation
is established only when a single prior art reference
discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency, each
and every element of a claimed invention." RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007