Appeal No. 95-2599
Application 07/983,931
with claim 25 being considered the representative claim and we
will consider claims 9 and 10 separately.
Appellants argue on pages 9 and 10 of the brief that Sato
fails to teach than when the substrate-side and the surface-side
portions are formed of the same material the substrate-side
portion has a faster etch rate as compared with an etch rate of
the surface-side portion under the same etching conditions. The
Examiner argues that the claimed limitations setting forth that
the lower portion has a faster etch rate as compared with an etch
rate of the upper portion under the same etching conditions as
recited in Appellants' claim 25 are inherent in the Sato
teachings.
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 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert. dismissed,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007