Appeal No. 1997-2296
Application No. 08/210,298
the Response to Supplemental Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 20) for appellant’s position
with respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
The rejection of Claim 1 is founded on two different embodiments disclosed by
Harris: (1) the embodiment of Figure 3; or, alternatively, (2) the embodiment of Figure 1.
(See Answer, pages 3-4.) The examiner reads the claimed “charge amplifier” on “storage
means” 14 (Figure 3) or on “storage capacitor” 14 (Figure 1).
Appellant argues, inter alia, that “storage capacitor 14 is not an amplifier.” (Brief,
page 4.) The written description of Harris refers to element 14 of Figure 1 as “storage
capacitor 14.” See Harris, column 2, lines 5-16. Harris refers to the “storage means” 14 of
Figure 3 as “storage capacitor 14.” See id. at column 2, lines 35-49. The disclosed
circuitry (Figure 4) reveals that “storage capacitor 14” is, indeed, simply a capacitor.
“Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
expressly or under principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention.”
RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388
(Fed. Cir. 1984). Claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218
USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007