Appeal No. 1998-3016
Application No. 08/568,344
As noted above, Briggs does teach all the limitations of
claim 1. A disclosure that anticipates under 35 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). Thus, we sustain the examiner's
rejection of appealed claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 over
Briggs taken in view of the general state of the art.
As noted above, the appellants have grouped claims 2 and
5 through 9 as standing or falling together with independent
claim 1. Thus, it follows that the decision of the examiner
to reject claims 1, 2, and 5 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Briggs taken in view of the general
state of the art is affirmed.
Turning now to claims 10 and 11, we note that both claims
10 and 11 include substantially the same limitations as claim
1 with additional structure not recited in claim 1, e.g. the
base member including a passage for an air-oil mixture and a
passage for clean air, with the exterior of the coalescer
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007