Appeal No. 97-0124
Application No. 08/273,672
We now consider the rejection of claims 1, 4, and 7-10 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Guzowski. 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 4, the Examiner has
indicated how the various limitations are read on the disclosure
of Guzowski. We note that the relevant portion of independent
claim 4 (similar language appears in independent claim 1)
recites:
... and the connecting element of one of said
first and second electrodes is wider than
the connecting element of the other one of
said first and second electrodes in a
direction transverse to the electron beam.
In addressing this limitation, the Examiner refers to the Figure
2 illustration of Guzowski. In the Examiner’s view, this
illustration clearly shows the width of the connecting element 50
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007