Appeal No. 2002-2090
Application 08/430,311
from the operation as taught." See In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578,
581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981). The examiner’s rejection of
claims 57 through 63, 65, 66, 69 and 76 through 78 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Givens in view of
Lankard will not be sustained.
As for claims 70 through 75, we see nothing in Lankard which
would change our view of Givens as already expressed above.
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims
70 through 75 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the collective
teachings of Givens and Lankard, again noting that anticipation
or lack of novelty is the ultimate or epitome of obviousness.
With regard to the Declaration Under Rule 132 filed by
appellant on November 7, 1994, we note that such declaration
addressing evidence of secondary considerations, such as
discovery of the problem, unexpected results, skepticism of
others in the art, etc., is irrelevant to the 35 U.S.C. § 102
rejection based on Givens and thus cannot overcome that
rejection. See, In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543, 179 USPQ 421,
425 (CCPA 1973). As for the rejections of the claims on appeal
24
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007