Appeal No. 97-2159
Application No. 08/127,555
Schmitt 4,004,036 Jan. 18,
1977
As indicated by the examiner on pages 2 and 3 of the
answer, claims 5 and 10 through 15 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Schmitt, and claims 3,
4, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Schmitt. 2
We will not sustain either of these rejections.
In order for a section 102 rejection to be proper, the
applied reference must clearly and unequivocally disclose the
claimed invention or direct those skilled in the art to the
claimed invention without any need for picking, choosing and
combining various disclosures not directly related to each
other by the teachings of the reference. In re Arkley, 455
F.2d 586, 587, 172 USPQ 524, 526 (CCPA 1972). In making her
section 102 rejection of claims 5 and 10 through 15, it is
apparent that the examiner has inappropriately picked, chosen
and combined various disclosures of the Schmitt reference
2By an apparently inadvertent oversight, the examiner has
failed to include independent claim 27 in the rejections
advanced on this appeal. In order to completely disposed of
the issues before us, we will assume that the above noted
rejections include independent claim 27.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007