Appeal No. 2006-0894 Page 12
Application No. 10/412,840
Claims 14 and 15
Concerning separately argued dependent claims 14 and 15, and
the less than 4 percent and less than 2 percent moisture content
levels for the substrate recited therein, we again refer to
Example 5 of Erickson and the intrinsic properties of the Mylar
substrate employed in that example, as further discussed above.
While appellants assert that Erickson does not disclose
maintaining the claimed moisture levels of either of those
dependent claims for the substrate, a reading of Example 5 of
Erickson coupled with the intrinsic properties of Mylar, as
discussed above, belies appellants’ assertion for reasons set
forth in the answer and above. It follows that we shall also
affirm the examiner’s anticipation rejection of dependent claims
14 and 15, on this record.
§ 103 Alternative of Rejection
In view of the above discussion, we shall likewise sustain
the examiner’s § 103 alternative rejection over Erickson since 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
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007