Appeal No. 2004-1137
Application No. 09/734506
extent, to a temperature below the sampling temperature existing
outside the sampler.
Since Longsworth clearly teaches a sampler like that broadly
set forth in claim 1 on appeal, the examiner's rejection of claim
1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) will be sustained. As for claims 2
through 9 and 11, also rejected by the examiner under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) based on Longsworth, in view of appellant's grouping of
claims set forth on page 10 of the brief, it is our determination
that claims 2 through 9 and 11 will fall with independent claim
1, from which they depend.
The examiner has also nominally rejected claims 1 through 9
and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Longsworth. However,
notwithstanding that we find no express obviousness analysis made
by the examiner, we will sustain this rejection also, since
anticipation or lack of novelty is the ultimate or epitome of
obviousness. See, in this regard, 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).
1212
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007