Appeal No. 2002-0993 Page 12
Application No. 09/368,781
configured to cooperatively act to cut material disposed therebetween when the angle
between the first member A and the second member A is reduced towards zero).
Since claim 38 is readable on Root, claim 38 is anticipated by Root under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Affirmance of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is appropriate, since it
is well settled that 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,
the decision of the examiner to reject claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
The obviousness rejection of claims 35 and 36
We sustain the rejection of claims 35 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 35 and 36 read as follows:
35. A tool for cutting materials, comprising:
a first lever arm;
a second lever arm, said second lever arm being coupled to said first
lever arm by a pivot assembly;
only one insert with multiple cutting edges, said insert disposed at least
partly within and attached to said first lever arm; and
means for severing a material.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007