Appeal No. 2003-0125
Application No. 09/722,529
appellant’s specification and claims,3 the applied teachings,4
and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As
a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
Anticipation
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Hansen.
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is established only when
a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or under
3 In claim 26, lines 2, 3, a word is missing following the
recitation of “a unitary sheet of foldable”. Read in light of
the underlying disclosure, the missing word is understood to be ,
e.g., --material--. This matter should be addressed by the
examiner.
4 In our evaluation of the applied prior art, we have
considered all of the disclosure of each document for what it
would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art. See
In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into account not
only the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw
from the disclosure. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159
USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007