Appeal No. 97-2621
Application 08/432,442
The prior art reference must either expressly or inherently
describe each and every limitation in a claim. Verdegaal
Bros. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053
(Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987).
Claim 1 was rejected by the examiner as being anticipated
by Chen.
The only feature argued by the appellants as not having
been adequately disclosed by Chen for purposes of an
anticipation rejection is that the linear protrusions from G2
must extend past the apertured portion of G3. According to
appellants, even though Chen’s Figure 2 appears to show such
an extension and overlap (projections on electrode G2b
extending beyond the apertured portion or bottom plane of
electrode G3), the disclosure is merely accidental and thus is
insufficient to support an anticipation rejection. The
appellants cite In re Bager, 47 F.2d 951, 952, 8 USPQ 484, 486
(CCPA 1931) to support their assertion of the ineffectiveness
of a rejection based on “accidental” anticipation. On page 5
of the appellants’ brief, it is stated:
As to whether an accidental showing in a drawing
is or is not an anticipation of a later invention
depends generally upon the facts in each particular
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007