Ex Parte BOWEN et al - Page 5




               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