Appeal No. 2003-0231 Page 11
Application No. 09/749,372
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7 and 14 which depend from either claim 1 or claim 13 have not
been separately argued by appellant as required in 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and (8)(iv).
Accordingly, we have determined that these claims must be treated as falling with their
respective independent claim. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d
1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Thus, it follows that the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 3, 4, 6, 7 and 14 is also affirmed.
The obviousness rejection
We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
since the rejection of these claims as being anticipated by Yuen has been sustained
above. 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).
We sustain the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Yuen in view of Official Notice and Young for the following reasons.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007