Appeal No. 1997-3690
Application 08/427,163
we will treat claim 2 separately.
In regard to the rejection of claims 1-3, 5 and 9 as
being anticipated by Mizuno, Appellants argue on page 8 that
Mizuno fails to disclose forming the high-dielectric, titanium
oxide material in direct contact with the substrate.
Appellants point out that Mizuno discloses that the titanium
oxide layer is formed on an intermediate gate oxide.
On page 4 of the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner
interprets the claim "substrate" as including both the PE-type
silicon substrate 11 and the oxide film 12. In response,
Appellants on page 3 of the Reply Brief argue that the term
substrate must be given the ordinary meaning and also be
consistent with the meaning ascribed to the terms by the
Appellants.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 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. 1984). "Anticipation is
established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
expressly or under principles of inherency, each and every
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007