Appeal No. 2005-1057 Page 3
Application No. 09/802,792
rejections, and to the brief (filed September 12, 2003) and reply brief (filed January 20,
2004) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn first to the rejection of claims 1, 6 to 10, 20, 22 to 24 and 26 to 30 as
anticipated by Koizumi. We note that to support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b), it must be shown that each element of the claim is found, either expressly
described or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art 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).
The examiner is of the view that Koizumi describes each element of claim 1 (see
answer at page 4).
The appellants argue that Koizumi does not describe a photosensitive chip
having a groove and a light-transmissive planar layer extending over the groove portion.
In appellants' view because Koizumi teaches that the light-transmissive planar layer
is removed before the chip is severed from the chip (col. 2, lines 64 to 68),
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007