Appeal No. 1996-3126
Application No. 08/300,586
appellants' claims. In particular, Sokal specifies in column
16 that V falls to approximately zero as the switch turns on
CE
and that the waveform for V has a slope of zero at that
CE
point. Further, Figure 4A shows the voltage slightly above
zero when the switch turns on. In other words, Sokal teaches
that the preferred voltage is small, not substantial when the
switch turns on.
However, Figure 4A also shows an undesirable condition of
Q TOO LOW, wherein there is a substantial voltage which
L
abruptly drops to zero when the switch is turned on. Although
the undesirability of such condition would appear to teach
away further, according to Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell
Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522 (Fed.
Cir. 1998),
[a] reference is no less anticipatory if, after
disclosing the invention, the reference then
disparages it. Thus, the question whether a
reference "teaches away" from the invention is
inapplicable to an anticipation analysis. See
Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772,
218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("The law of
anticipation does not require that the reference
'teach' what the subject matter of the patent
teaches .... [I]t is only necessary that the claims
under attack, as construed by the court, 'read on'
something disclosed in the reference."), overruled
in part on other grounds, SRI Int'l v. Matsushita
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007