Appeal No. 98-1455 Page 13 Application No. 08/625,936 of connecting hub 103 except for the projecting flange as discussed above). When read in this manner, as shown in Figure 17, the wall thickness of the flange is shown to be less than the thickness of the unitary body. Thus, De Rose anticipates claim 18 and "anticipation is the epitome of obviousness." Furthermore, it is our determination that the relative thickness between De Rose's flange relative to the thickness of one of his side plates 102 would have been an obvious matter of engineering design as in In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975) ("Use of such means of electrical connection in lieu of those used in the references solves no stated problem and would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill in the art." (citations omitted)). Dependent claim 19 adds to parent claim 16 the limitation that the flange extends "outwardly from the unitary body by a dimension at least as great as a thickness of the unitary body."Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007