Appeal No. 2002-1219
Application No. 09/471,667
assembly system, it is not incorrect to set forth that the
robotic handling system takes micro devices and places them on
the assembly system since clearly the assembly system is not
recited as consisting of the robotic handling system alone.
The second rejection
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 8 and 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by PRIOR ART
FIGURES 1 AND 2.
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is established only when
a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or under
principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d
1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-
79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Spada, 911 F.2d
705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc. , 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). However, the law of anticipation does
not require that the reference teach specifically what an
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007