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).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007