Appeal No. 1999-0853
Application No. 08/709,869
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do
not agree with the Examiner that claims 1 through 9 are
anticipated by the applied reference.
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. 1986) and Lindermann
Mashinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d
1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellants' claim 1 recites the following:
an FET (23 or 36) connected to conduct between the output
of the first circuit and one of the power supply
terminals . . .,
the channel type of the FET, the phase of its gate signal
with respect to the output of the first circuit, and the
polarity of the power supply terminal being selected to
turn on the FET during a switching transition near the
knee of the transfer curve having the two parallel paths.
Appellants argue on pages 7 and 8 of the brief that
neither Shimizu nor Koyama teaches Appellants' claimed
limitations as required under 35 U.S.C. § 102. In particular,
Appellants argue that the Shimizu and Koyama "references do
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007