2. Anticipation
A rejection for anticipation requires that the four corners of a single
prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention, either
expressly or inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could
practice the invention without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder
Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir.
1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed.
Cir. 1994).
ANALYSIS
1. 35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection
Appellant’s position with respect to the teachings of Tyler is that the
prior art electrodes are formed on the top or back surface of the channel
walls whereas the claims require the electrodes to be “disposed along
opposing lateral sides of the channel” (Br. 6; Reply Br. 2). Determining the
scope of the claims by looking at the words recited in the claims, we find
that claim 15 merely requires the electrodes to be disposed along opposing
lateral sides of the channel. The Examiner correctly points out that the
claim language does not limit the position of the electric field generating
means to any specific part of the channel walls as long as they are along the
lateral sides of the channel (Answer 6). As such, the electrodes could be
positioned anywhere on the wall from the bottom to the top of the channel
walls including the top of the channel walls.
Giving the broadest reasonable interpretation to the claim term “along
opposing lateral sides,” we find that the electrode arrangement of Tyler
reads on the subject matter recited in claim 15. Tyler describes the position
of the electrodes as “alongside the edge of the envelope in alignment with
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013