Appeal No. 1999-2040
Application No. 08/475,023 Page 21
of the preamble does not provide antecedent basis for any
limitation in the body of the claim. In addition, although
appellants argue that Spaulding does not disclose minimizing
artifacts, no argument has been presented that Oshikoshi does not
minimize artifacts; See Catalina marketing International, Inc. v.
Coolsavings.com., Inc., 01-1324 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Accordingly,
we find that the preamble does not constitute a limitation of the
claim.
Thus, we find that claim 10 is met by Oshikoshi, and we
consider Spaulding to be superfluous. While this is, in effect,
a holding that claim 10 is anticipated by Oshikoshi under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b), affirmance of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is
appropriate, since it is well settled that 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). We therefore
affirm the rejection of independent claim 10, and claim 21 which
falls with claim 10, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007