Appeal No. 1998-0380
Application No. 08/518,062
anticipated by Hughes. Since anticipation or lack of novelty
is the epitome of obviousness we, therefore, also sustain the
rejection of claims 1 and 5/1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See In
re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA
1982). The rejection of claim 6/1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
sustained since this claim stands or falls with claim 1, as
earlier indicated.
The appellants correctly point out (main brief, page 9),
in the matter of the obviousness rejection of claim 2, that
the examiner has not stated any reason as to why the
limitations thereof would have been obvious based upon
Hughes. Accordingly, we must reverse the rejection of this2
claim under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
2As explained earlier, the subject matter of claim 2 is
not anticipated by the unscaled drawing of Hughes. The
examiner does not rely on the apparent admission that "[i]n
most conventional cases, the maximum electric field strength
along the supporting body is approximately a factor of three
lower than that in the prevailing vacuum" (spec., p. 3, lines
8-9).
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007