Appeal No. 2004-1137
Application No. 09/734506
In light of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner's
rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Gillard, and that of claims 29, 31 and 32, which depend
therefrom, since appellant's grouping of claims on page 10 of the
brief allows those claims to fall with independent claim 28.
The examiner has also nominally rejected claims 28, 29, 31
and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Gillard. However,
notwithstanding that we again find no express obviousness
analysis made by the examiner, we will sustain this rejection
also, since, as we noted earlier, anticipation or lack of novelty
is the ultimate or epitome of obviousness.
To summarize, of the eight rejections before us on appeal,
only the examiner's rejection of claims 24 through 32 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, has been reversed, each of the
prior art rejections posited by the examiner has been sustained.
Thus, the decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
2424
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007