Appeal No. 1996-3262
Application No. 08/141,632
being unpatentable over Kimoto et al or Nakahata et al when taken
with Cole or Olmstead, or Miura et al.
A. Rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Kimoto et al.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-3 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kimoto et al.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 can be found only if the prior art reference discloses
every 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 submit11 that Kimoto et al shows a diamond
semiconductor diode and does not teach any fluid sensing function
or that the diamond layer should contact the fluid. Appellants
11
11 Brief, page 7 and Reply Brief, page 2.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007