Appeal No. 1998-2515
Application 08/548,938
from each separate rejection as representative of all the
claims on appeal.
We consider first the rejection of claims 29, 33, 39
and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by the
disclosure of Oberg. Anticipation is established only when a
single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the
principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention as well as disclosing structure which is capable of
performing the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221
USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228
(1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721
F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
With respect to representative, independent claim 29,
the examiner indicates how he reads the claim on the
disclosure of Oberg [answer, pages 3-4]. Appellant argues
that there is no disclosure in Oberg of conductive pads
disposed along a selected edge of the slider and an aperture
within a dielectric layer which is overlying said plurality of
conductive pads and connected as recited in claim 29. The
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007