ANSWER: (E) is the most correct answer. As set forth in MPEP § 2131.05, “‘Arguments that the alleged anticipatory prior art is ‘nonanalogous art’ or ‘teaches away from the invention’ or is not recognized as solving the problem solved by the claimed invention, [are] not ‘germane’ to a rejection under section 102.’ Twin Disc, Inc. v. United States, 231 USPQ 417, 424 (Cl.Ct.1986) (quoting In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 213 USPQ 1, 7 (CCPA 1982)). A reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention, the reference then disparages it. The question whether a reference ‘teaches away’ from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis. Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed.Cir.1999).” Therefore, answers (A) through (D) are incorrect. See also MPEP § 706.02(b) as to ways to overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
***Variation, choice D was different – but the answer was still (E).
