Appeal No. 2002-0130
Application No. 09/265,479
April 13, 1995) issued to Krishnamurthy et al. on August 5, 1997
(hereinafter referred to as Krishnamurthy).
We reverse.
We initially observe that an anticipation under Section 102
is established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
either expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and
every element of a claimed invention. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d
705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990); RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The examiner finds (Answer, page 3) that Krishnamurthy
discloses
a ferrite disk 21 ... that is dielectrically bonded to
the conductive disk 19 with and [sic, an] adhesive 22
as seen in figures 1a and 1b (col. 5, lines 15-19).
(emphasis added).
The examiner, however, has not established that the
“dielectrical” adhesive layer 22 described in Krishnamurthy is
the claimed electrically conductive layer.2 When the appellant
points to this deficiency in the examiner’s finding at pages 6
2 Indeed, page 183 of Grant & Hackh’s Chemical Dictionary, Fifth
edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company (1987)(attached herewith) defines the term
“dielectric” as “a nonconductor of electricity.”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007