Appeal No. 98-1455 Page 12
Application No. 08/625,936
Claim 17
As noted above, De Rose does teach all the limitations of
claim 17. 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 decision of the examiner to
reject claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Claims 18 through 20
Dependent claim 18 adds to parent claim 16 the limitation
that the flange has "a wall thickness less than a thickness of
the unitary body."
De Rose does not teach the relative thickness of his
flange relative to the thickness of one of his side plates
102. However, the claimed unitary body reads on both side
plates 102 and the connecting hub 103 therebetween (i.e., all
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007