Appeal 2007-0592
Application 10/263,001
1 apparatus is prevented from being damaged by the released particles.” (Col.
2 6, ll. 47-51).
3
4 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
5 On appeal, Appellants bear the burden of showing that the Examiner
6 has not established a legally sufficient basis for anticipation based on the
7 Kurano patent. Appellants may sustain this burden by showing that the prior
8 art reference relied upon by the Examiner fails to disclose an element of the
9 claim. It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found
10 only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim. See In re
11 King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and
12 Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730
13 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
14
15 ANALYSIS
16 The Examiner correctly shows where all the claimed elements appear
17 in the Kurano prior art reference.
18 First, contrary to Appellant’s contentions, Kurano’s flexible substrate
19 17 is part of Kurano’s microactuator just as Appellant’s support frame
20 (actuator base) 310 forms part of Appellant’s ‘U’-shaped micro-actuator
21 306. Therefore, Appellant has not established that the Examiner erred with
22 respect to this contention.
23 Second, contrary to Appellant’s contentions, the right half of
24 Kurano’s “H” shaped structure 17 in Figure 11 is “generally ‘U’-shaped” as
25 required by claims 1 and 8. The fact that Appellant’s preferred
26 embodiments show what Appellant describes as “a proper U-shaped”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013