Appeal No. 2004-0373
Application No. 08/939,064
allowing them at some future time to be simultaneously resized
using the created single control separator, such a non-
independent window resizing arrangement is not precluded by the
language of claims 5 and 6. Similarly, with respect to appealed
claims 7 and 10, we find the teaching in Santos-Gomez of aligning
the various corners of the workspace windows (e.g., column 6 ,
lines 47-63) as clearly contemplating the use of horizontal as
well as vertical predetermined distance values.
In view of the above discussion, it is our view, that the
Elliott reference is not necessary for a proper rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 5-7 and 10 since Santos-Gomez
appears to disclose all that is claimed. 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).2
Accordingly, the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 5-7
and 10 is sustained based on Santos-Gomez alone.
2 The Board may rely on less than all of the references applied by the
Examiner in an obviousness rationale 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).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007