Appeal Number: 2006-1404
Application Number: 09/571,803
1303, 1312, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005), cert. denied
sub nom., 126 S. Ct. 1332 (2006). Reussenzehn’s handle has the
character of a single thing because it is fastened to the tray
protrusions.
We therefore find the slicer claimed in the appellant’s
claim 1 to be anticipated by Reussenzehn. Accordingly, we
affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 13, 17, 19 and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Reussenzehn and, because
anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, see In re Skoner,
517 F.2d 947, 950, 186 USPQ 80, 83 (CCPA 1975); In re Pearson,
494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974), we affirm
the rejections of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Reussenzehn and over Reussenzehn in view of van Berkel.7
the claims did not require a unitary structure but, rather, were open to two
components welded together. The appellant’s specification and the dictionary
definitions of “unitary” do not give that term such a narrow meaning. The
other cases relied upon by the appellant (reply brief, pages 5-6) do not
limit “unitary” to “one piece”. Thirteen of the patents relied upon by the
appellant have in a portion cited by the appellant (reply brief, pages 6-7)
the terms “unitary” and either “one-piece” or “single piece” either together
or in close proximity, but do not indicate that if an article is unitary it
must be one piece.
7 The appellant’s reliance upon a declaration by Guangshan Zhu with respect to
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (brief, page 8), wherein Zhu states that
there has been a long-felt need to eliminate gaps and spaces in food
processing equipment (¶ 5) and that molding a single-piece handle is
expensive (¶ 8), is unavailing to the appellant as to the affirmed rejections
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007