Appeal No. 1997-2846
Application 08/388,599
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d
1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). "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), cert.
dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984), citing Kalman v. Kimberly-
Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir.
1983). The Examiner, in the Answer, explains how Temple
meets all the limitations of claim 7 except for the last
paragraph of claim 7 where Lmax is recited. At page 9 of the
Answer the Examiner states:
Although Temple does not explicitly propose a
sophisticated mathematical formula to explain the
relationship among different electrical parameters
of the structure [including Lmax], Temple has
accomplished a high maximum lateral drop and
latching current density to avoid latching on the
parasitic transistor which is the same goal of
appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention.
Therefore, no prima facie case of obviousness is
needed to be established by the examiner and the
appellants have not proved that the structure of
Temple [ ] cannot anticipate[] and/or inherently
have the claimed relationship among different
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007