Appeal No. 2005-0713
Application No. 10/153,719 Page 5
I. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1-3, 5, and 11-12 over Gesche.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as well
as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the recited
functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data
Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.);
cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and Associates,
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). The law of
anticipation only that the claims on appeal "read on" something
disclosed in the reference (see Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,
713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984)).
With respect to claim 1, we refer to page 4 of the answer
regarding the examiner’s position in this rejection. As found by
the examiner (answer, page 4), Gesche teaches in Figure 1 a high
frequency generator (1), which corresponds to the claimed radio
frequency power source, separated from the radio frequency powered
electrode (7) by a capacitor (14), which corresponds to the
claimed decoupling capacitor, and two variable capacitors (9, 13),
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007