Ex parte HATTORI et al. - Page 13




          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