Appeal No. 1996-3591
Application No. 08/251,053
"anticipation is the epitome of obviousness." Jones v. Hardy,
727 F.2d 1524, 1529, 220 USPQ 1021, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
See also In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569,
571 (CCPA 1982); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ
641, 644 (CCPA 1974). Thus, we sustain the examiner's
rejection of appealed claims 8-14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.5
In summary, we have not sustained the 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, rejection of claims 8-14. In addition, we
have not sustained the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-7
and 15, but have sustained the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claims 8-14. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1-15 is affirmed-in-part.
5The Board may rely on one reference alone in an
obviousness rationale without designating it as a new ground
of rejection. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263,
266-67 (CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458, n.2, 150
USPQ 441, 444, n.2 (CCPA 1966).
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007