Appeal No. 1998-2927 Page 9
Application No. 07/584,667
Claims 2 and 3
In accordance with the appellants' above-noted grouping
of claims, claims 2 and 3 fall with claim 1. Thus, it follows
that the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2 and 3
under
35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a) is also affirmed.
Claim 4
We sustain the rejection of claim 4.5
The appellants argue (brief, page 8) that the prior art
clearly lacks the recited mounting of a moistening member on a
flat holder, with the moistening member being divided into as
4(...continued)
U.S.C. § 102 also renders the claim unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103, for "anticipation is the epitome of
obviousness." Jones v. Hardy, 727 F.2d 1524, 1529, 220 USPQ
1021, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See also In re Fracalossi, 681
F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982); In re Pearson,
494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974).
5Claim 4 reads as follows: Moistening member according to
claim 3 wherein said moistening member is segmented into as
many segments as there are compartments, at least in said part
thereof
dipping into said compartments, and is mounted on a flat
holder which fixes said moistening member to the reservoir.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007