Appeal No. 1999-0734 Page 5
Application No. 08/686,495
Group 3: Claims 16 and 17
Group 4: Claim 18
Group 5: Claims 19 and 20
With regard to the obviousness rejection, the claims are grouped together as follows:
Group 6: Claims 21 and 27
DISPOSITION
We affirm-in-part the decision of the Examiner to reject the appealed claims.
Specifically, we affirm with respect to the subject matter of Groups 1 and 3, i.e. claims 13, 14,
16, and 17, but reverse with respect to the subject matter of Groups 2 and 4-6, i.e. claims 15 and
18-21 and 27. Our reasons follow.
OPINION
Anticipation by Rutt
“To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every limitation of the claimed
invention, either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d
1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). All of Appellants’ claims are directed to a multilayer capacitor, i.e.
a product. “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re
Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). This is true whether the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007