Appeal No. 2004-0657
Application No. 09/845,604
The Appellant also argues that “there is only a single, non-
enabling reference to double gates anywhere in Muller” (brief,
page 7) and that, “[a]bsent an enabling disclosure of how to create
dual gates on opposite sides of the fin, Muller cannot anticipate
Applicant’s invention” (brief, pages 7-8). This argument is
without discernable merit. The Muller patent is presumptively
valid (35 U.S.C. § 282), and, as the Appellant acknowledges,
patentee explicitly discloses a double gated device. See In re
Weber, 450 F.2d 1403, 1407, 160 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1969) and
In re Michalek, 162 F.2d 229, 231-32, 74 USPQ 107, 109 (CCPA 1947).
With further regard to this last mentioned acknowledgment,
the Appellant seems to believe and argue that the double-gate
structure fabricated by his method differs from patentee’s double
gated device. We agree with the Examiner, however, that appealed
claim 1 defines no such difference. It is here appropriate to
reiterate that the law of anticipation does not require a reference
to “teach” what the Appellant teaches; it is only necessary
that the claim in question “read on” something disclosed in the
reference. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d at 772, 218
USPQ at 789. As explained above and in the answer, each of the
2(...continued)
briefs before this Board.
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007