Appeal No. 1997-0595 Page 11
Application No. 08/154,911
Since claim 3 is anticipated by Johnson, the decision of
the examiner to reject claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
affirmed.
The obviousness rejection utilizing Johnson
We sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 4 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of D'Angelo
but not the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 to 8 and 10.
As noted above, claim 3 is anticipated by Johnson. A
disclosure that anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders
the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for
"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 claim 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of
D'Angelo.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007