Appeal No. 1999-1765 Page 11
Application No. 08/839,193
readable on the water rod assembly of Nylund (Fig. 3), the
examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based
on Nylund is sustained.
As noted above, Nylund teaches 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 also sustain the examiner's
rejection of appealed claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Nylund.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of
obviousness is established by presenting evidence that the
reference teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007