Appeal No. 1999-1835
Application No. 08/654,976
1974)(holding that an anticipation rejection "cannot be overcome
by evidence of unexpected results or teachings away in the
art."). Moreover, the appellants have not supported their
allegation with any objective evidence of nonobviousness
commensurate in scope with claim 8.
The appellants contend: "[T]he '765 patent [Yamaguchi] does
not discuss any reasons for providing the structure that the
Examiner's Answer asserts is disclosed." (Reply brief, page 3.)
However, the appellants do not cite to any language in 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) or other legal authority that would support the notion
that a prior art reference cannot anticipate a claim unless the
reference discusses a reason for providing the anticipating
structure.
For these reasons, we uphold the examiner's 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of appealed claim 8 as anticipated by
Yamaguchi.
II. Rejection of Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the
Combined Teachings of Yamaguchi and JP '723
Concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 8 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Yamaguchi and JP '723, we
also uphold this rejection because anticipation is the epitome
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007