Appeal No. 96-4003
Application 08/288,131
arguments for patentability have been made with respect to any of the dependent claims 2-6, 12-16,
21, and 23, these claims will stand or fall with their respective base claims.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the disclosure of Tobita fully
meets the invention as set forth in claims 1-6, 11-16, 21, and 23. Accordingly, we affirm. We
note that 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
Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228
(1984); W.L. Gore and Assoc, 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 claims 1 and 11, the Examiner has indicated how the various
limitations are read on the disclosure of Tobita (Answer, pages 4 and 5). In response, Appellants
argue several alleged distinctions over Tobita including the contention (Reply Brief, page 3) that,
contrary to the present claimed invention, the first and second generated substrate voltages in Tobita
are different in magnitude. In support of their position, Appellants refer to the passage at column 12,
lines 46-66 of Tobita which describes the different voltages generated by the first and second charge
pump circuits.
After careful review of Appellants’ arguments, it is our view that such arguments are not
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007