Appeal No. 2000-1019
Application No. 08/623,852
anticipated and not have been obvious. [E]vidence establishing
lack of all novelty in the claimed invention necessarily
evidences obviousness.” 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571
(CCPA 1982). Therefore, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bender in
view of Pazdej, and correspondingly, of dependent claims 2
through 13.
22
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007