Appeal No. 2007-0111
Reexamination 90/006,297
compound); and (iii) n-heptane (column
10, line 73 to column 11, line 14)
1
2 Accordingly, Vandenberg describes every limitation of the invention recited
3 in appealed claim 1. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429,
4 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
5 Claim 9 is significantly broader than claim 1 in that ethylene is not recited.
6 Accordingly, Vandenberg’s disclosure, which anticipates claim 1, necessarily
7 anticipates claim 9.
8 As we discussed above, Vandenberg describes each and every limitation of
9 the invention recited in appealed claims 1 and 9. It follows then that the subject
10 matter of these appealed claims would also have been obvious to a person having
11 ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), because
12 anticipation is the epitome or ultimate of obviousness. In re Baxter Travenol
13 Laboratories, 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1284-85 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
14 Under these circumstances, we detect no reversible error in the examiner’s
15 rejections.
16
17
18
19
79
Page: Previous 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013