Appeal No. 2002-1606
Application No. 08/906,648
discussed, for example, at column 3, line 47 et seq. in Van
Vliet, the use of the high resolution buffer 32 provides
additional address code information, i.e. sequential numbers
corresponding to first and second blocks of address codes, a
format which, in our view, can reasonably be interpreted as being
in a different format than numbers output from low resolution
memory 18 which use a single address code block.
In view of the above discussion and analysis, it is our
opinion that the Van Vliet reference alone discloses all of the
limitations of appealed representative claim 1. 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). Therefore,
since the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness has not been
overcome by any convincing arguments from Appellant, we sustain
the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of representative
claim 1, as well as claims 2-11 which fall with claim 1.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007