Appeal No. 2005-0430
Application No. 09/817,241
point out that the protective layer 11 covering adhesive tape 6
is indeed an “electrical insulating” bonding tape (id.).
The examiner responds by arguing that it is element 6 in
Tamura (Figure 1 and col. 6, lines 24-32) that the claimed
conductive tape reads on (answer, page 5). The Examiner further
indicates that Tamura forms tape 6 of a copper or aluminum foil
as the conductive base which is coated with an electrical
conductive bonding agent as the claimed conductive sticky layer
(id.).
A rejection for anticipation requires that the four corners
of a single prior art document describe every element of the
claimed invention, either expressly or inherently, such that a
person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention
without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco
Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999);
In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed.
Cir. 1994). The inquiry as to whether a reference anticipates a
claim must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the
claim and what subject matter is described by the reference. As
set forth by the court in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), it is only
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007