Appeal No. 1995-4525
Application No. 08/157,406
the target cells. In other words, appellant's argument for
patentability is based on a limitation not found in claim 3.
The rejection of claims 1 through 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
as anticipated by Miller is affirmed.
Respecting the rejection of claims 1 through 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures
of Mets, Sanford, and Curtis, we affirm this rejection to the
extent that it has been applied to claims 1 through 3 and 5.
This result follows because lack of novelty is the epitome of
obviousness, In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1089, 197 USPQ 601, 607
(CCPA 1978), and, for the reasons previously discussed, claims
1 through 3 and 5 are anticipated by Mets within the meaning
of 35 U.S.C. § 102.
We reverse this rejection to the extent that it has been
applied to claims 4, 6, and 7. For the reasons succinctly
stated in the Appeal Brief, the examiner's combination of
Mets, Sanford, and Curtis, insofar as it applies to claims 4,
6, and 7, relies on the impermissible use of hindsight.
The rejection of claims 1 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Mets,
Sanford, and Curtis is affirmed with respect to claims 1
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007