Appeal No. 2002-1778 Page 8
Application No. 09/285,078
configuration which is adapted to attach the main spring clip to a human body); and a
clamp having a pair of jaws arranged to receive an ornament (Jacks' secondary spring
clip 2 has a pair of jaws arranged to receive an ornament/torch as explained above);
wherein the clamp has a spring resilience that is sufficient to permit securement of an
ornament between the jaws of the clamp by pressing the ornament between the jaws of
the clamp against the spring resilience (Jacks' secondary spring clip 2 has a spring
resilience that is sufficient to permit securement of an ornament/torch between the jaws
of the secondary spring clip 2 by pressing the ornament/torch between the jaws of the
secondary spring clip 2 against the spring resilience), whereby the spring resilience
alone secures the ornament between the jaws after said pressing ceases (the spring
resilience alone of Jacks' secondary spring clip 2 secures the ornament/torch between
the jaws after the pressing ceases).
For the reasons set forth above, we have concluded that Jacks teaches all the
limitations of claim 1. 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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007