Appeal No. 97-3194 Page 12
Application No. 08/442,816
2 (claim 11) when the device is locked. In that regard, we
find no limitation in either claim 45 or claim 11 which
requires the pawl to engage one and only one tooth. With
regard to claim 3, as clearly shown in Figure 3, the ratchet
teeth 2 of Damon partially circumscribe the one arm of rod 1.
As noted above, Damon does teach all the limitations of
claims 44, 45, 3, 11 and 12. 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). Thus, the
examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness.
The § 103 rejection utilizing Wood in view of Damon
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims
44, 45 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Wood in view of Damon. In that regard, we agree with the
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007