Ex Parte Hauck et al - Page 6





              Appeal No. 2005-1123                                                                     Page 6                 
              Application No. 10/062,921                                                                                      



              that old product patentable.  In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429,                             

              1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).  In this case, Hosono’s remote control transmitter is fully capable,                     

              without modification, of being used for controlling a motorized window covering having                          

              an IR receiver.                                                                                                 

                      In light of the above, we conclude that Hosono anticipates2 claim 15.  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).                                                                 

                      Moreover, it would have been obvious, in view of the combined teachings of                              

              Kovach and Hosono, to provide a remote control transmitter for Kovach’s powered                                 

              window assembly comprising both an infrared light emitter for transmitting an encoded                           

              infrared light signal carrying commands for moving the window covering and a visible                            

              laser beam emitter, with the infrared light beam being superimposed on the visible light                        

              beam, as illustrated in Figure 4 of Hosono.  The motivation for providing such a remote                         



                      2 Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under      
              the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention.  RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital       
              Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).  In other words, there must be        
              no difference between the claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of              
              ordinary skill in the field of the invention.  Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d     
              1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).  It is not necessary that the reference teach what           
              the subject application teaches, but only that the claim read on something disclosed in the reference, i.e.,    
              that all of the limitations in the claim be found in or fully met by the reference.  Kalman v. Kimberly Clark   
              Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007