Appeal No. 1997-1317
Application No. 08/371,995
Kipp patents, the examiner responds by stating that "the
rejection sets forth, and the individual references clearly
spell out, the elements that are claimed" (Answer at 7), which
is inadequate to satisfy the examiner's initial burden of
establishing anticipation with respect to the claimed elements
in question. The § 102 rejection of claims 2-6 based on
either one of the Kipp patents is reversed.
2. Obviousness
Turning now to the question of obviousness, the §
103 rejection of claim 1 based on either one of the Kipp
patents in
view of Lazarus or Hethuin is affirmed pro forma because the
§ 102 rejection of that claim based on the Kipp patents has
been affirmed. Anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.
Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ
193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
As already noted, the examiner has not shown that
the limitations recited in dependent claims 2-5 are disclosed
in either of the Kipp patents. Nor has the examiner explained
how these limitations are suggested by Lazarus and Hethuin,
which the examiner cites solely for their disclosure of using
- 13 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007