Appeal No. 1997-1378
Application No. 08/065,328
It is our finding that the illustrated flow chart of
Natarajan’s Figure 5 clearly describes such feature. After a
determination that signal quality in a normal operating mode
(block A, column 9, line 28) is not acceptable, a search mode
illustrated in the left branch of the Figure 5 flow chart is
initiated to monitor signals from potential base station
“owners” of the mobile unit. 3
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 representative claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 9-13,
and 19 which fall with claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 4
3In the footnote at the bottom of page 4 of the Reply
Brief, Appellants admit that Natarajan provides a
communication quality determination feature by monitoring
acceptable signal levels.
4The 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,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007