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 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007