Appeal No. 1998-1125 Page 11
Application No. 08/410,247
described in example 4.4. Since we agree with the
examiner’s determination that representative claim 1 is
anticipated by Smits II, we shall sustain the § 102 rejection
as to all of the rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8, which stand
or fall together with representative claim 1.
§ 103 Rejection of claims 1-6 and 8 over Smits II
For the reasons set forth above, the examiner has
established a prima facie case of anticipation of
representative claim 1 which has been insufficiently rebutted
by appellants. We observe that a disclosure that anticipates
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders a 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). It
follows that we shall sustain the examiner’s
§ 103 rejection over Smits II as to all of the rejected claims
1-6 and 8, which stand or fall together with representative
claim 1, as discussed above. Moreover, it is well settled
that when a claimed product appears substantially the same as
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007