Appeal No. 1998-1655 Page 13
Application No. 08/367,766
"[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. Applied Digital Data
Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1446, 221 USPQ 385, 390 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
Here, because Yamada anticipates the invention of claims
1, 2, 11, and 20, the claims are ipso facto obvious over
Yamada. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2,
11, and 20 as obvious over Yamada. We next address claim 3.
Claim 3
The appellants argue, "Yamada fails to teach the coaction
of a movable member and a spring member to hold the cartridge.
Instead, Yamada teaches that the cartridge holder is held
between a fixed chassis and a loading frame." (Appeal Br. at
9.) The examiner responds, "[e]lements 9, 9' are clearly
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007