Appeal 2006-2133 Application 10/679,144 single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as well as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.); 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), 469 U.S. 851 (1984). With respect to independent claims 74-76, the Examiner indicates (Answer 4) how the various limitations are read on the disclosure of Basceri. In particular, the Examiner directs attention to various portions of the disclosure at columns 6-9 of Basceri. In our view, the Examiner’s analysis is sufficiently reasonable that we find that the Examiner has as least satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case of anticipation. The burden is, therefore, upon Appellants to come forward with evidence and/or arguments which persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived [see 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004)]. Appellants’ arguments in response assert that the Examiner has not shown how each of the claimed features is present in the disclosure of Basceri so as to establish a case of anticipation. Appellants’ arguments (Br. 14-16; Reply Br. 6) focus on the contention that, in contrast to the claimed invention, Basceri does not disclose the preheating of the wafer before the deposition of the PZT film. 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013