Appeal No. 2006-0667
Application No. 09/953,310
A claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 “if each and
every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in a
single prior art reference.” Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben
Venue Labs, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1374, 58 USPQ2d 1508, 1512 (Fed.
Cir. 2001).
Appellants argue (brief, page 3) that “Liou makes a linear
coil (see Figs. 2A-3A) and not a toroidal coil as required by
claim 21.” The examiner contends (answer, page 4) that
“[b]ecause the vias form a closed loop between first and second
level vias, a toroidal shape between turns is created.”
Liou is completely silent as to a teaching that the first,
second and third metal lines 22, 25 and 28, respectively, form a
toroidal coil. In view of the fact that the connections between
the three metal lines are made to extend the three-dimensional
inductor only along the direction of the magnetic field until the
(N+1)th turn coil is created (Figure 2A; column 1, lines 10
through 12; column 4, lines 10 through 15), we agree with the
appellants’ argument that Liou makes a linear coil, as opposed to
a toroidal coil. Thus, the anticipation rejection of claim 21 is
reversed because Liou does not disclose “each and every
limitation” of claim 21.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007