Appeal No. 2001-2262
Application 09/006,014
Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 6, 7, 10, 11 and
13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the
disclosure of Takino. 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 has indicated how he reads the claimed
invention on the disclosure of Takino [answer, pages 3-4]. With
respect to sole independent claim 11, appellants argue that
magnetic elements 8F and 8B of Takino are not one on top of the
other as claimed. Appellants also argue that the mere assertion
by Takino that multi-channel heads may be formed fails to teach
one how to make such a head [brief, pages 9-10]. The examiner
responds by providing a diagram which, in the examiner’s view,
shows that elements 8F and 8B of Takino are on top of each other
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007