Appeal No. 2005-0234
Application No. 09/901,550
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse both the anticipation rejection of claims 1 through
3, 5 through 7, and 11 and also the obviousness rejection of
claim 4.
"It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102
can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every
element of the claim." In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ
136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also Lindemann Maschinenfabrik
GMBH v. American Hoist and Derrick, 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ
481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Each of independent claims 1, 6, and
11 includes a barrier (formed as a groove in claims 1 and 6)
along the edge of the bonding channel and "a parting agent
disposed thereon for repelling" a "flowable material" from the
bonding channel onto the frame. Therefore, for Wiech to
anticipate the claims, Wiech must disclose each of the above-
noted elements.
The examiner contends (Answer, pages 3-4) that Wiech's
groove 10 satisfies the claimed barrier and that Wiech's element
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007