Appeal No. 1999-1926
Application No. 08/675,938
REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102
A prior art reference anticipates the subject of a claim
when the reference discloses every feature of the claimed
invention, either explicitly or inherently, See Hazani v. Int'l
Trade Comm'n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1358, 1361 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc.,
730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellants discuss claims 9, 37 and 38 as a single group at
page 12 of the brief. We take broad claim 38 as the exemplary
claim for this group. The Examiner gives a detailed explanation
the of anticipation rejection at pages 4 and 5 of the Examiner’s
answer by Shen. The Examiner relies specifically on Figure 7A
and 7B of Shen. Appellant argues (brief at page 12) that “[t]his
reference [Shen] discloses a device with means for adjusting a
clamping pressure only in an axial direction of the cylinder
using plates and springs. There are no means for adjusting
clamping pressure in a transverse direction with bars projecting
towards the outer circumference of this cylinder.” However, we,
like the Examiner, find that Shen in Figure 7A and 7B shows the
claimed structure elements recited in claim 38, for example, see
dielectric insert at 30, supporting element at 20, a holder at 70
which holds the supporting element 20 and which is mounted on an
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007