Appeal No. 2001-0271 Page 8
Application No. 08/855,474
badly deform the mouse pad of House, we perceive in this no
distinction over the subject matter of claim 15, as claim 15
does not require that the aperture be dimensioned to permit
the insertion of a ZIP disk without deforming the mouse pad.5
Appellant has not alleged, much less established by evidence,
that the opening and pouch of House are not sufficient to
receive a computer disk, such as a compact disk, as the
examiner contends on page 9 of the answer.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the subject
matter of claim 12 is anticipated by House. 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). Stated differently, House evidences that the subject
matter of claim 12 would have been obvious to one skilled in
It is well established that limitations not appearing in the claims5
cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213
USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007