Appeal No. 1998-0659
Application No. 08/264,527
electrode. As we have found above that Matsushima uses
electrodes to apply the electrical signal to the patient, this
claim is obvious over Matsushima. "[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) (citing In re
Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982)).
Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of claim 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushima.
C. Rejection of claims 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
As regards to claim 12, Appellants argue generally that 20
neither Matsushima nor Shannon discloses the features of the
invention therein claimed, and thus no combination of these
references would result in the claimed invention.
20 Brief, page 7.
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007