Appeal No. 1999-0403
Application 08/804,095
cover is capable of being used in the manner called for in
claim 7. Thus, the examiner concludes that claim 7 “reads on”
Hoenstine’s cover 12.
The examiner’s finding of facts and conclusions based
thereon are well taken. The majority of appellant’s arguments
to the contrary are premised upon the view that claim 7 is
directed to the combination of a protective cover and a
swimming pool. However, in that we have interpreted claim 7
as being directed to
a cover per se, these arguments are not persuasive.
Appellant’s additional argument that Hoenstine is directed to
nonanalogous art is noted. The argument fails at the outset
because the rejection is a § 102 anticipation rejection. In
re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1350-51, 213 USPQ 1, 7 (CCPA 1982).
In light of the foregoing, we will sustain the § 102
rejection of claim 7 as being anticipated by Hoenstine.
The obviousness rejection of claims 7 and 11
based on Lund and Reinhardt
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007