Appeal No. 1997-3524 Page 13
Application No. 08/336,402
the order of 10 microns as required by claim 3. Consequently, we
shall reverse the examiner’s § 102 rejection as to the latter
claims.
Rejections under § 103
In view of the above discussion, we shall likewise sustain
the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 4 over Pall since
a disclosure that anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders
the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for "anticipation
is the epitome of obviousness." Jones v. Hardy, 727 F.2d 1524,
1529, 220 USPQ 1021, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See also In re
Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982); In
re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974).
While we find that Pall anticipates and hence renders the
product of claims 1 and 4 prima facie obvious for the reasons
outlined above, we further determine that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have been led to a product embraced by claims 1
and 4 by simply following the teachings of Pall and selecting
appropriate materials and deposition conditions from the small
list of deposition materials and formation conditions disclosed
and suggested by Pall. We note that a prior art reference may be
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007