Appeal No. 1997-3473
Application No. 08/331,684
element of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326,
231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann
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 Systems, 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).
Appellants do not dispute that Kawabe teaches most of the
claimed elements, much like Appellants’ admitted prior art
figures. However, Appellants argue that Kawabe does not teach
their claimed cavity layer, and its relationship to the top
magnetic pole piece.
The Examiner maintains that Kawabe teaches a cavity layer
as 13, see Figure 7(a), with an aperture 16. The Examiner
proposes three ways that the claim language is met. (1)
Aperture 16 partly defines the shape of the top paddle, where
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007