Appeal No. 97-3669
Application 08/391,745
1990); RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d
1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See also In re
King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986);
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co.,
730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). 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).
Claims 4, 5, 8, 24, 25, 27 and 28 are rejected as being
anticipated by Aoyama.
The appellants argue (Br. at 7), with respect to the Aoyama
reference:
In Aoyama a layer of electrode material is
attached to the surface of a substrate by an adhesive,
the adhesive strength of which varies as a result of
light irradiation. The adhesive is then irradiated by
light limited through the electrode material pattern-
wise by means of a mask. The layer of electrode
material is then pulled away from the exposed or the
unexposed areas depending on whether the exposure to
light strengthened or weakened the layer of the
adhesive material.
According to the appellants, Aoyama nowhere discloses irradiating
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007