Appeal No. 2003-0229
Application No. 09/768,885
lasting qualities are proportionately greater, due to
the fact that in stitching the strand a greater number
of feet of resistance conductor in a given length is
obtained than in such heating-pads wherein the
conductor is laid thereon and secured in any ordinary
manner.
Given these teachings, we share the examiner’s view (final
Office action, page 2) that a person having ordinary skill in
the art would have been led to combine the teachings of
Pfenninger and Bloomer. That is, one of ordinary skill would
have found it prima facie obvious to stitch Pfenninger’s
resistance wire 13 onto the base member 12 with a reasonable
expectation of obtaining all of the advantages described in
Bloomer.
Moreover, as we pointed out above, Pfenninger describes
lacing (i.e., stitching) the resistance wire 13 onto the base
member 12. (Column 3, lines 9-12.) Thus, Pfenninger describes
each and every limitation of appealed claim 16. Although the
examiner’s rejection of appealed claim 16 has been made under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a), a prior art disclosure that anticipates under
35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders the claim obvious, for anticipation
is the epitome of obviousness. In re Baxter Travenol
Laboratories, 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1284-85 (Fed.
Cir. 1991); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007