Appeal No. 1999-2242 Application No. 08/137,056 examiner's rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection We have indicated above that we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Yasukawa. Thus, we find the examiner's use of the Church and Mohiuddin patents to be mere surplusage and sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim 14 on the basis of Yasukawa alone, noting that anticipation or lack of novelty 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). Claims 12 and 13 are grouped by the appellant with claim 14, supra. Accordingly, claims 12 and 13 fall with claim 14. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7). In addition, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that claim 14 is not anticipated by Yasukawa, we have considered the collective teachings of Yasukawa, Church and 11Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007