Appeal No. 1999-1661
Application No. 08/801,862
as the claimed distance sensor.
After reviewing the Kramer reference, we agree with the
Examiner’s characterization of the drain wires 30, 31 as a
“distance sensor” since the walls clearly move through a
distance until they come into contact. We do consider,
however, the Examiner’ assertion of the obviousness of
recognition to the skilled artisan of this fact to be
misplaced. In our view, the Examiner’s analysis of the
language of appealed claim 1 and the operation of the drain
wire “distance sensor” of Kramer establishes that all of the
elements of claim 1 are in fact disclosed by Kramer. 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).
Although Appellants filed a Reply Brief, no arguments
were directed to the Examiner’s restatement of the line of
reasoning with respect to Kramer’s disclosure of the claimed
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007