Appeal No. 2000-0937
Application 08/959,620
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the disclosure of Sudo does fully meet the invention as
recited in claims 1-9. We reach the opposite conclusion with
respect to claims 23-32. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
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).
The examiner indicates how he reads the claimed invention
on the disclosure of Sudo [answer, pages 3-5]. With respect to
claims 1-9, which stand or fall together [brief, page 4],
appellant argues that Sudo does not teach that the edges of the
layer of conductive material on the sides of the container are
recessed slightly below the upper surface of the substrate.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007