Appeal No. 1999-2646
Application No. 08/794,398
unconvincing. We shall therefore sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of this claim as being anticipated
by Duran ‘021.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 16, 19 and 20 as being anticipated by
Duran ‘021 since these claims stand or fall with claim 14.
IV. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 1 and 14
It is well settled that lack of novelty in claimed
subject matter, i.e., anticipation, is the ultimate or epitome
of obviousness. See In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215
USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982)). Inasmuch as the subject matter
recited in claims 1 and 14 is anticipated by Duran ‘021, we
shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) obviousness
rejections of these claims as being unpatentable over Duran
‘021 alone or further in view of Reimold.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 16, 19 and 20 as being
unpatentable over Duran ‘021 alone or further in view of
Reimold, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims
3, 15 and 17 as being unpatentable over Carpentier in view of
Duran ‘021, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007