Appeal No. 2005-0478 Page 6
Application No. 10/064,363
In view of the above discussion, it is our view, that Uchida teaches all the
features of 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 Francalossi, 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).3
As to claim 5, Appellants argue, “Fig. 2 . . . fails to show any nozzle tip.”
We find this argument unpersuasive as Uchida’s teaches a nozzle (item 42) at
column 6, line 43.
As to claim 6, Appellants argue that Uchida fails to show an opening
smaller than the nozzle tip. We find this argument unpersuasive as the opening
shown in figure 2 of Uchida is deformed by the nozzle and is thus smaller.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
of claims 1 and 5-6.
II. Whether the Rejection of Claim 4 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence
relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art the invention as set forth in claim 4. Accordingly,
we reverse.
3 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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007