Ex Parte Ker et al - Page 4

                Appeal 2007-1095                                                                              
                Application 09/944,171                                                                        
                something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are                  
                found in the reference, or ‘fully met’ by it.”  While all elements of the                     
                claimed invention must appear in a single reference, additional references                    
                may be used to interpret the anticipating reference and to shed light on its                  
                meaning, particularly to those skilled in the art at the relevant time.  See                  
                Studiengesellschaft Kohle v. Dart Indus., Inc., 726 F.2d 724, 726-727, 220                    
                USPQ 841, 842-843 (Fed. Cir. 1984).                                                           
                      From our review of the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1,                     
                we find that the Examiner has at least established a requisite initial showing                
                of anticipation of independent claim 1 and shown that Fig. 10 of Jun clearly                  
                teaches all of the limitations as recited in independent claim 1.  Therefore,                 
                we look to Appellants’ arguments to show error in the Examiner’s showing.                     
                      Appellants state “Admittedly, Fig. 10 of the patent itself could be a                   
                basis for this rejection.”  But Appellants contend that Fig. 10 contradicts the               
                remaining parts of the patent specification (Br. 5).  Appellants speculate that               
                the symbols used in the figure have been used to indicate a large area of                     
                diodes instead of a stacked arrangement (Br. 5). Appellants then go through                   
                a lengthy analysis of the remainder of Jun patent and circuitry of Fig. 9.                    
                While the analysis appears to be accurate, it is with reference to a mere two                 
                dimensional slice of a larger three dimensional circuit which would be used                   
                to function as depicted in Fig. 10 (Br. 5-8).  While we find Appellants’                      
                analysis helpful, we cannot agree that Appellants’ speculation on the                         
                operation of the circuit in Fig. 9 is determinative that the clear and definitive             
                teachings of Fig. 10 are in error.  While we do find the text of Jun addressing               
                the circuit of Fig. 10 to be very brief, the circuit on its face is clear and the             
                brief description of the circuit does not identify any clear error in the circuit             


                                                      4                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013