Appeal No. 2004-0063 Application 09/767,359 We find appellant’s argument to be unpersuasive of any error on the examiner’s part. While each of the independent claims on appeal includes a limitation regarding the depressed portions being “spaced apart from the bonding zones,” we observe that the exact nature of the spacing is not specified in the claims. Again looking to Figures 1 and 2 of Kaneko and Ball, we note that in each of the applied patents the depressed portions are vertically spaced apart from the bonding zones of the cover tape to the carrier tape, thus meeting the broad language of appellant’s claims on appeal. From Figures 5A and 5B of the application, it appears that appellant’s bonding zones are intended to be both vertically and laterally spaced apart from the depressed portions (306) of the carrier tape, however, the claims on appeal do not bring out this distinction. An anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) is established when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or under principles of inherency, each and every element or limitation of a claimed invention. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed Cir 1997) and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007