Appeal No. 1999-1143
Application No. 08/735,925
It is well settled that, for a section 102 rejection to
be proper, the prior art reference must clearly and
unequivocally disclose the claimed invention or direct those
skilled in the art to the invention without any need for
picking, choosing and combining various disclosures not
directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited
reference. In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587, 172 USPQ 524, 526
(CCPA 1972). Here, there is nothing in the teachings of
Obayashi which “clearly and unequivocally” directs those
skilled in the art to make the specific selections of
materials for patentee’s amorphous metal core layer,
electroconductive metal plating layer, and polymeric coating
layer which would be necessary in order to result in a method
and product of the type claimed by the appellants. Therefore,
we cannot sustain the examiner’s section 102(b) rejection of
claims 22, 23, 26-28 and 31-34 as being anticipated by
Obayashi.
As for the section 103 rejection based on Obayashi, we
understand the examiner’s point that patentee discloses the
individual materials involved in the appellants’ claimed
method and product. In our view, however, this fact merely
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007