Appeal No. 1996-3058
Application 08/192,520
present in Welch et al. (Brief-
page 5.)
We note that Appellants’ claim 1 recites “movement
from any first said gear to any second said gear”. We
interpret any to mean any, not any and all. Therefore, Welch
meets the recited claim language if a movement from any one
gear in Welch to any other gear in Welch meets the recited
claim language. Appellants have selected movement from 4L to
2H in Figure 5 of Welch. However, we note that the claim is
met if movement is from 4L to 4H (223E), N to 4H (223E and
223C), N to 4L (223F) and 2H to 4H
(223F). Thus, the recited claim limitation is met by Welch.
We also note that either pattern set (60 or 65) in Figure 4 of
Welch meets the recited claim limitation.
We refer to the Examiner’s Answer for the
explanation of where Welch teaches the remaining (unargued)
limitations of claim 1, and thereby anticipates Appellants’
claim 1. Lack of novelty is the ultimate of obviousness. See
In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA
1982). Thus, we will sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007