Appeal No. 2002-0010
Application 09/073,308
the epitome of obviousness. In re McDaniels et al., 01-1307
(Fed. Cir. June 19, 2002); Connell v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 722
F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re
Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982)
quoting In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644
(CCPA 1974) (a lack of novelty in the claimed subject matter,
e.g., as evidenced by a complete disclosure of the invention in
the prior art, is the “ultimate or epitome of obviousness”).
Claim 3 merely requires the valve seat to be machined to
space the suction valve from the suction valve seat. Presumably,
the valve seat of Fritchman has been machined in some manner,
even if entirely flat, as in the prior art. The claim does not
state how the seat is machined, and since the valve shape of
Fritchman assure the claimed separation, Fritchman inherently
anticipates this claim. The obviousness rejection of claim 3 is
affirmed, anticipation being the epitome of obviousness.
All rejections are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007