Appeal No. 2000-0142 Page 24
Application No. 08/705,569
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-10 and 14 as
obvious over AAPA in view of De La Plaza.
Turning to claims 15 and 20, for the reasons we explained
in addressing the indefiniteness rejections, our analysis
leaves us in a quandary about what the claims specify.
Speculations and assumptions would be required to decide the
meaning of the terms employed in the claim and the scope of
the claim. Therefore, we reverse pro forma the rejection of
claims 15 and 20 as obvious over AAPA in view of De La Plaza.
Turning to claim 19, we recall that “a disclosure that
anticipates under Section 102 also renders the claim invalid
under Section 103, for 'anticipation is the epitome of
obviousness.'" Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d
1542, 1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re
Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982)).
Obviousness follows ipso facto, moreover, from an anticipatory
reference. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730
F.2d 1440, 1446, 221 USPQ 385, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007