Appeal No. 2006-2982 Page 15
Application No. 10/458,112
1989) (“No litmus test can be given with respect to when the introductory
words of a claim, the preamble, constitute a statement of purpose for a
device or are, in themselves, additional structural limitations of a claim.”).
In the instant case, we find that Richter discloses all the structural
elements, arranged as claimed [instant representative claim 18]. We find
that Richter discloses (in fig. 2) a lower magnetically soft superparamagnetic
layer 8A (i.e., “a magnetic film comprising superparamagnetic particles on at
least one surface thereof,” as claimed) [col. 5, line 31]. We find that layer
8A is in contact with exchange de-coupling layer 8B (i.e., “a barrier layer
therebetween,” as claimed) [col. 5, line 32]. We further find that Richter
discloses an upper magnetic layer 4 [col. 5, line 34].
We note that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has
determined that the absence of a disclosure relating to function does not
defeat a finding of anticipation if all the claimed structural limitations are
found in the reference. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d
1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In Schreiber, the court held that a funnel-
shaped oil dispenser spout anticipated a claimed conical-shaped popcorn
dispensing top, even though the function of popcorn dispensing was not
taught by the reference, because the reference met all the structural
limitations of the claim. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1479, 44 USPQ2d 1429
at 1433.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007