Appeal 2007-1218
Application 10/850,258
prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence
of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.’” Id. (citing Rouffet, 149 F.3d at
1355, 47 USPQ2d at 1455).
It is well settled that “anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.”
In re McDaniel, 293 F3d. 1379, 1385, 63USPQ2d 1462, 1466-67 (Fed. Cir.
2002)(quoting Connell v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220
USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983)); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215
USPQ 569, 571(CCPA 1982).
ANALYSIS
As noted above, we do not agree with the Examiner that the blocking
mass can be considered a piston in the disclosure of Weitzenhof. Therefore,
we have reversed the rejections of claims 1-5, 19 and 20 under § 102 and
also the rejection of claims 6 under § 103.
Furthermore, as our findings of fact demonstrate, Pees fully
anticipates the structure claimed in claims 7-10, 21, 23 and 24. We therefore
affirm the anticipation rejection of these claims, as well as claim 13, which
Appellant has grouped with claims 7 and 8 (Appeal Br. 12). By our
analysis, Pees also anticipates the structure in claims 11 and 12. Therefore,
anticipation being the epitome of obviousness, we affirm the obviousness
rejection of claims 11 and 12.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013