Appeal 2006-1512
Application 10/131,455
A claimed invention is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 when all of
the elements of the claimed invention are found in one reference. See
Scripps Clinic & Research Found. V. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576,
18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The prior art reference must
disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1433
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
The issue presented for review with respect to this rejection is: Does
the Lee reference have a disclosure that anticipates the claimed subject
matter? The issue turns on whether Lee describes a clamp ring for securing
a substrate comprising a body, one or more substrate contacting surfaces
projecting from the body, and an edge exclusion lip projecting from the
body, the lip sized and adapted to project over an edge of any substrate
beneath the one or more contacting surfaces, the lip spaced from the
substrate at an innermost edge of the lip by a first distance and spaced from
the substrate at the substrate edge by a second distance smaller than the first
distance. We answer this question in the affirmative.
The Examiner finds that Lee describes a clamp ring that comprises all
of the above components (Answer 3-4).
Appellant has not disputed the Examiner's findings. Rather, Appellant
contends that the limitation appearing in the last stanza of claim 6 and 7 is
not described in Lee (Br. 8-9). Appellant’s contention is not persuasive for
the reasons set forth above. It has not been disputed that Lee describes a
clamp ring that comprises all of the above structural components. Appellant
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013