Appeal No. 2002-1319 Page 15
Application No. 08/974,971
examiner's position to be that in the operation of HUI 700 of
DeRoo, the size of the boot code section is varied.
From all of the above, we find that DeRoo anticipates claim
23. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) is affirmed. As claims 24-28 and 30-41 stand or fall
together (brief, page 5) the rejection of claims 24-28 and 30-41
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 23-41 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over DeRoo in view of
either Oh or Boehmer. We begin with claims 23-28 and 30-41 as
claim 29 was not rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), supra, and
has been separately argued. As we found, supra, that claim 23 is
anticipated by DeRoo, we similarly find that claim 23 would have
obvious over DeRoo in view of Oh or Boehmer, as anticipation is
the epitome of obviousness. The Board may rely on one reference
alone in an obviousness rational without designating it as a new
ground of rejection. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ
263, 266-67 (CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2, 150
USPQ 441, 444 n.2 (CCPA 1966). Lack of novelty is the ultimate
of obviousness. See In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215
USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982). Accordingly, we find the reference to
Oh and Boehmer to be cumulative to DeRoo, and affirm the
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007