Appeal No. 1995-4525
Application No. 08/157,406
through 3 and 5 and reversed with respect to claims 4, 6, and
7.
Respecting the rejection of claims 1 through 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures
of Miller, Sanford, and Curtis, we affirm this rejection to
the extent that it has been applied to claims 1 through 3.
This result follows because lack of novelty is the epitome of
obviousness, In re May, 574 F.2d at 1089, 197 USPQ at 607,
and, for the reasons previously discussed, claims 1 through 3
are anticipated by Miller within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
We reverse this rejection to the extent that it has been
applied to claims 4 through 7. For the reasons succinctly
stated in the Appeal Brief, the examiner's combination of
Miller, Sanford, and Curtis, insofar as it applies to claims 4
through 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 Miller,
Sanford, and Curtis is affirmed with respect to claims 1
through 3 and reversed with respect to claims 4 through 7.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007