Appeal No. 1999-1499
Application No. 08/764,736
While we cannot support the examiner's combination of
Borg-Warner and Dutkiewicz, we nonetheless will sustain the
examiner's rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In
reaching this conclusion we have carefully reviewed the
complete disclosure of the Borg-Warner reference, and find
that the subject matter set forth in claim 11 on appeal lacks
novelty with regard to the universal joint assembly found
therein. We refer specifically to flanges or fingers 33 on
the outer extremity 26 of each arm of yoke B. Fingers 33 are
received in depression 34 in the outer surface of bearing cups
D. Given this teaching in Borg-Warner, we find the examiner's
use of the Dutkiewicz patent to be mere surplusage. As noted
above, Borg-Warner teaches all the limitations of claim 11. 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 11 under 35
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007