Appeal No. 95-4959
Application 08/145,722
covered by claims 6-10 is clear, we do not sustain the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
We now consider the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by the disclosure of Capasso. These claims stand or fall together [brief, pages 2 and 3].
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).
With respect to independent claim 1, the examiner refers to Figures 1, 3 and 4 of Capasso and the
corresponding description in the patent to support the anticipation of claim 1 [answer, page 4].
Appellants argue that Capasso discloses a three-terminal device while claim 1 recites a two-terminal
device comprising at least two parallel resonant tunneling diodes(RTDs) [brief, page 3]. The examiner
replies that claim 1 does not include a limitation that the device is a two-terminal device [answer, page
8]. Finally, appellants respond that all diodes are two-terminal
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007