Appeal No. 2004-0106
Application 09/907,974
the hexagonal fastener cavities disclosed by either Rexford or
Hsiao stems from hindsight knowledge impermissibly derived from
the appellant’s disclosure.
Thus, neither Rexford nor Hsiao cures the admitted
shortcoming of Jarvis relative to the subject matter recited in
independent claim 24. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 24, and dependent
claims 25 through 27 and 29, as being unpatentable over Jarvis in
view of Rexford or Hsiao.
We shall sustain, however, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claim 30 as being unpatentable over
Jarvis in view of Rexford or Hsiao.
The adapters 187 and 505 disclosed by Jarvis together embody
a tool comprising a drive tool and an adapter, respectively,
meeting all of the limitations in claim 30. Unlike claim 24,
claim 30 does not require any of the cavities recited therein to
be hexagonal and is broad enough in its other respects to be
fully readable on these prior art components. Thus, the subject
matter recited in claim 30 is anticipated by Jarvis.
Anticipation, of course, is the ultimate or epitome of
obviousness. See In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ
569, 571 (CCPA 1982). Because Jarvis is anticipatory, the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007