Appeal No. 1998-1435 Page 12
Application No. 08/132,584
specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26
USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993)(citing In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Here,
representative claim 31 specifies in pertinent part the
following limitations: "installing first and second dryer
heads in side-by-side relation on the press in a position
facing a dryer exposure zone, the dryer heads being separated
from each other by a longitudinal air gap ... extracting the
heated air from the exposure zone through the longitudinal air
gap." Giving the claim its broadest reasonable
interpretation, the limitations recite extracting heated air
through a gap between a pair of dryer heads.
The examiner shows that the prior art would have
suggested the limitations. "[A] disclosure that anticipates
under Section 102 also renders the claim invalid under Section
103, for 'anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.'"
Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ
193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d
792, 215 USPQ 569 (CCPA 1982)). In other words, obviousness
follows ipso facto from an anticipatory reference. RCA Corp.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007