Ex Parte Schneider et al - Page 12



               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