Appeal No. 2000-2093 Page 5
Application No. 08/730,385
is our view that he had possession of this feature, that is, a manner of rotating the wafer
holder, at the time the application was filed.
In view of the above, it is our conclusion that the examiner’s position is not well
taken, and we will not sustain this rejection.
The Rejection Under Section 102(e)
Independent claim 13 stands rejected as being anticipated by Shendon.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, either
expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of the claimed
invention. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed.
Cir. 1994). Anticipation by a prior art reference does not require either the inventive
concept of the claimed subject matter or recognition of inherent properties that may be
possessed by the reference. See Verdegaal Brothers Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
814 F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Nor does it require that the
reference teach what the applicant is claiming, but only that the claim on appeal "read on"
something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the
reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp, 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983).
The only argument raised by the appellant with regard to this rejection is that
Shendon fails to disclose or teach “independently” rotating the wafer holder, as is required
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007