Appeal No. 97-2116
Application 07/789,802
based on Heckman.
With respect to the § 103 rejections of claim 25 based on
Heckman and Roales, we again note that evidence establishing
lack of novelty in the claimed invention necessarily evidences
obviousness. See In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d at 794, 215 USPQ
5 at 571 and In re Pearson, 494 F.2d at 1402, 181 USPQ at 644.
In that claim 25 lacks novelty over Heckman for the reasons
noted above, we will sustain the examiner’s rejections of
claim 25 under § 103 as being unpatentable over Heckman and
Roales (rejections (j) and (k)), noting that Roales is merely
cumulative in these rejections.
Summary
The rejection of claim 20 as being anticipated by Hoffman
(rejection (f)) is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 10, 12-14, 16, 19-24 as being
unpatentable over Hoffman in view of Cvacho ‘423 and other
references (rejection (g)) is affirmed as to claims 20-22 and
24, but is reversed as to claims 10, 12-14, 16, 19 and 23.
The rejection of claim 25 as being anticipated by Heckman
(rejection (i)), and the rejections of claim 25 as being
-24-
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007