Appeal No. 1999-0387 Page 14
Application No. 08/590,278
Claim 16 is readable on Drake in much the same manner as
claim 2 is readable on Drake. Claim 20 is readable on Drake
in much the same manner as claim 12 is readable on Drake.
Thus, the argument presented by the appellant does not
convince us that the subject matter of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10,
12, 16 and 20 is novel. Accordingly, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 16 and 20 under
35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is affirmed.
The obviousness rejection over Drake
We sustain the rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 16
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Drake,
but not the rejection of claims 5, 9, 11 and 19.
As noted above, Drake does teach all the limitations of
claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 16 and 20. 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,
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007