Appeal 2007-2861
Application 10/861,057
disclosed in the prior art, the PTO has no reasonable method of determining
whether there is, in fact, a patentable difference between the prior art and the
claimed invention. Therefore, where the claimed and prior art products are
identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or
substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove
that the prior art product does not necessarily possess the characteristics of
the claimed product.).
In light of the foregoing, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Dufour’s gripper finger 130 and linkage 139 each define an involute profile,
thereby satisfying the argued features of the rejected claims. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 2 and 4 as being
unpatentable over Dufour. See In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794,
215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982)(lack of novelty is the epitome of
obviousness).
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
clj
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013