Appeal No. 2005-0874
Application No. 10/320,073
“at least as much openness as the claimed open framework”
(Answer, page 9). We also note that the dimensions of the “void”
are such that exhaust gases are capable of flowing from said
lower spindle (at 30b) through the upper spindle area (see Figure
5).
In view of the claim construction discussed above and the
findings from Sugimoto, we determine that every limitation
recited in claim 22 on appeal is described by Sugimoto.2
Accordingly, claim 22 is anticipated by Sugimoto. See In re
King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Since the lack of novelty is the ultimate or epitome of
obviousness, we necessarily affirm the examiner’s rejection of
claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sugimoto in view of Kimura
and Hayes. See In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ
569, 571 (CCPA 1982).
Appellants argue that there is no teaching or suggestion of
the claimed open framework heat regulating element in Sugimoto
(Brief, page 4). In contrast, appellants argue that Sugimoto
discloses a closed configuration, as evidenced by air supply
conduit 30, damper 40 and the small nature of the conduit
2A discussion of Kimura and Hayes is unnecessary to our
decision for this rejection.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007