Appeal No. 2006-1232
Application No. 09/761,500
We therefore conclude that the claimed feature perceived by the
Examiner to be lacking is in fact disclosed by Thomas. As Appellants have
not alleged that any other claimed feature is not taught by Thomas, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-4 which Appellants
have not argued separately from claim 1, as being unpatentable over
Thomas.2
SUMMARY
The rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Thompson is
reversed. The rejections of claims 1-4 as being anticipated by Tilman,
unpatentable over Tilman in view of Thomas, unpatentable over Ausnit in
view of Thomas, and unpatentable over Thomas are all sustained.
Consequently, the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-4 is
AFFIRMED.
2 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).
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013