Appeal No. 2001-1372 Page 13
Application No. 08/018,841
premised on affiant’s belief that Davis’ teachings are limited to sintered shape memory
alloy components.
For the foregoing reasons, appellants’ argument and evidence are insufficient to
persuade us that the subject matter of claim 15 is not anticipated by Davis. Thus, the
examiner’s rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Davis
is sustained. 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). Thus,
on this basis, the examiner's rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is also
sustained. Furthermore, even if Davis does not expressly disclose projectiles having
shape memory alloy components without voids, the permissive language in lines 1-3 of
column 9 of the Davis patent would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
use of such components. Thus, the examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 15 is
sustained on this basis as well.
Appellants’ sole argument with regard to the examiner’s rejections of dependent
claim 16 is directed to sintered powdered metal Nitinol (see brief, page 16). For the
reasons discussed supra, we find this argument unpersuasive. We therefore sustain
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007