Appeal No. 95-0543
Application 08/008,734
opposite conclusion with respect to claims 16 and 17.
Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
We consider first the rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosure of Potter.
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 has supported this rejection by reading
claim 1 on the Potter disclosure [answer, pages 3-4]. Appellants
argue that Potter teaches that there are four layers between the
heat sink and the diamond layer. According to appellants, this
teaching of Potter cannot meet the claim 1 recitation of “wherein
only one of said connecting layers is between said means for
eliminating heat and said electrically insulating and thermally
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007