Appeal No. 2003-1176
Application No. 09/074,288
material 1 is in fact “held to a backside of the trim member
that is opposite of the upholstery skin material.”
The appellants’ position that Takeuchi’s mat-shaped fiber
reinforcing material 1 is “no longer porous” after impregnation
with the foam base material 3 is unavailing for the same reasons
discussed above with respect to the rejection based on Rohrlach.
Because none of the appellants’ arguments are persuasive,
we affirm the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
As to the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we
affirm this rejection as well because a prior art disclosure
that anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders the claim
obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for anticipation is the epitome
of obviousness. In re Baxter Travenol Laboratories, 952 F.2d
388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1284-85 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re
Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982); In
re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1089, 197 USPQ 601, 607 (CCPA 1978).
Summary
In summary, we affirm: (i) the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) of appealed claims 1 through 4 and 6 through 10 as
anticipated by Rohrlach; (ii) the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) of appealed claims 1 through 4 and 6 through 10 as
anticipated by Takeuchi; and (iii) the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007