Appeal No. 1998-1472 Page 23
Application No. 08/427,721
The examiner’s combination of references would require a
change in the basic principles under which Bjorklund’s
processes were designed to operate. The examiner fails to
allege, let alone show, that Murakami or Hugle remedies this
defect.
Because Bjorklund’s processes rely on focussed beams, we
are not persuaded that the prior art would have suggested the
desirability, and thus the obviousness, of combining Takeda’s
teaching of using a plane-wave beam with Bjorklund’s teaching
of recording a micro-interface pattern. The examiner
impermissibly relies on the appellants’ teachings or
suggestions to piece together the teachings of the prior art.
Nevertheless, "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)). Obviousness follows ipso facto,
moreover, from an anticipatory reference. RCA Corp. V.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007