Appeal No. 1999-1721 Page 7
Application No. 08/734,125
Turning next to the examiner's rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hara in view of AAPA, our discussion supra with regard to the recited
raceway diameter in claim 7 applies equally to claim 8. Accordingly, we conclude that the
subject matter of claim 8 is anticipated by Hara. 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 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Pursuant to the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the following new ground of
rejection.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hara.
As discussed above, it is our opinion that Hara's rail anticipates the limitations of claim
2. Our discussion with regard to these limitations is equally applicable with regard to claim 6,
which depends from claim 2, and is incorporated herein. Appellant's claim 6 further recites
that the material of the ball holder is "a metal." While Hara does not disclose, expressly or
under the principles of inherency, that the track rails (2) are made of metal, the rails (2) as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007