Page 4
Appeal No. 2002-1854
Application No. 09/163,874
Claim 1 sets forth the invention in the following manner:
1. In a method for the linear configuration of metallic fuse
sections, the improvement which comprises:
providing a fuse with fuse sections in a linear configuration,
said fuse sections having a bit combination;
selecting a fuse section corresponding to the most
significant bit; and
placing other fuse sections adjacent both sides of the fuse
section corresponding to the most significant bit.
The examiner has rejected claim 1 as being anticipated by Nakaizumi. In
arriving at this conclusion, the examiner has focused upon lines 46-57 and Figure 3 of
the reference, contending that all of the steps in claim 1 are taught therein. The
appellant argues in rebuttal that while Nakaizumi might arrange a plurality of fuse
sections in a linear configuration, it does not disclose or teach the steps of selecting a
fuse section corresponding to the moist significant bit and placing the other fuse
sections adjacent both sides of the selected fuse section.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of the claimed
invention. See, for example, RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d
1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). A reference anticipates a claim if it
discloses the claimed invention such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in
combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007