Appeal No. 2006-2982 Page 16
Application No. 10/458,112
Because Richter discloses every element of the instant claimed
structure, we agree with the examiner that Richter’s disclosed structure is
inherently capable of performing the instant intended purpose or function of
magnetic switching. Accordingly, because the absence of a disclosure
relating to an intended use or function does not defeat a finding of
anticipation, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of representative claim
18 as being anticipated by Richter for essentially the same reasons argued
by the examiner. We note that appellants have not presented any
substantive arguments directed separately to the patentability of dependent
claims 19 and 20. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d at 1572, 2 USPQ2d at 1528.
See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). Therefore, we will also sustain
the examiner’s rejection of these claims as being anticipated by Richter for
the same reasons set forth in the examiner’s rejection.
Claims 1, 4, 8-10, 15, 22, 23, 25, 26 and 38 (Sun)
III. We consider next the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 8-10, 15, 22,
23, 25, 26 and 38 as being anticipated by Sun. We will begin our analysis
with independent claim 1.
Appellants argue that Sun neither teaches nor suggests a magnetic
film, as claimed [brief, page 6]. Appellants assert that Sun instead teaches
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007