Appeal No. 1996-3113
Application 08/099,243
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
agree with the Appellants that claims 18 and 19 are not
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Tatsuya.
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 Sys., Inc.,
730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert.
dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984), citing Kalman v. Kimberly-
Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
Appellants argue on page 9 of the brief that Tatsuya does
not continually monitor substrate current which flows between
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007