Appeal No. 96-0088
Application No. 08/038,426
the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Robinson is sustained.
C. The Rejections under 103
Claims 1 and 4 through 14, 16, 18 through 21, 23 through
25 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bowers ‘050, in view of Henk, Robinson ‘483,
Robinson ‘017, Reinhard and Baird. We shall sustain this
rejection. Appellants have stated in the Brief, page 7, that
the above claims stand together on the issue of obviousness,
and we have previously affirmed the § 102 rejection of
independent claims 1 and 23 as being anticipated by Bowers,
‘050. It is well settled that the ultimate obviousness is
lack of novelty. The claims cannot have been anticipated and
not have been obvious. In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794,
215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982). Accordingly, there is no
further need to inquire into the disclosure of any of the
secondary references combined with Bowers. Based upon the
above considerations, the rejection of claims 1, 4 through 14,
16, 18 through 21, 23 through 25 and 27 are affirmed under
section 103.
17
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007