Appeal No. 2000-2024
Application No. 09/059,207
We therefore will sustain the rejection of claim 10, as 2
well as of dependent claims 11 to 13, which appellants have
not argued as being separately patentable. 37 CFR §
1.192(c)(7).
On pages 5 and 6 of their brief, appellants include
claims 20 and 21 along with the other claims to which
rejection (1) applies, and present the same argument as to all
the rejected claims, which is, in essence, that Keeler does
not disclose an attaching means which can be mounted over an
existing conveyor without altering the existing conveyor.
This argument is not applicable to claims 20 and 21, however,
since those claims contain no limitations concerning the
installation of an attaching means to an existing conveyor,
and in fact do not recite a conveyor at all. Accordingly,
since no relevant argument has been presented as to claims 20
and 21, their rejection will be sustained.
2We recognize that our conclusion that claim 10 is
readable on Keeler is tantamount to a holding that claim 10 is
anticipated by Keeler under § 102(b). However, this
conclusion is an appropriate basis for sustaining the § 103(a)
rejection, since "The complete disclosure of an invention in
the prior art is the ultimate or epitome of obviousness." In
re Avery, 518 F.2d 1228, 1234, 186 USPQ 161, 166 (CCPA 1975).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007