Appeal No. 97-4242
Application 08/451,281
In reaching our conclusion on the anticipation issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered
appellants’ specification and claim 1, the applied patent,2
and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner.
As a consequence of our review, we make the determination
which follows.
We affirm the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b).
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) is established only
when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly
or under principles of inherency, each and every element of a
claimed invention. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-
2In our evaluation of the applied patent, we have considered all of the
disclosure thereof 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).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007