Appeal 2007-0473
Application 09/969,584
Additionally, the prior art Tuttle patent describes that, “the
transmitting sensitivity of the device can be adjusted in essentially the
same manner by regulating delivery of a bias current to the Schottky
diode configured in series relation with the antenna during signal
transmitting modes of operation.” (Col. 5:42-46).
The prior art Tuttle patent further describes that “the ability to
impedance match a current biased Schottky diode electrically
configured in series with an antenna in order to tune or intentionally
detune a transmitting and/or receiving antenna circuit is new.” (Col.
6, ll. 19-23).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
On appeal, Appellants bear the burden of showing that the Examiner
has not established a legally sufficient basis for anticipation based on
the Tuttle patent. Appellants may sustain this burden by showing that
the prior art reference relied upon by the Examiner fails to disclose an
element of the claim. It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under
§ 102 can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every
element of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231
USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik
GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221
USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner correctly shows where all the claimed elements appear
in the Tuttle prior art reference.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013