Appeal No. 1997-1970
Application 08/268,732
the patent to Geraldine, and the respective viewpoints of4
appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
We reverse the rejection of claims 21 through 24.
At the outset, we note that independent claim 21
addresses a device for draping curtains. Among other things,
this claim sets forth “a holder for fixing the curtain fabric
with a predetermined folding or draping” and “a disk-like
cover” provided on the holder. The claim additionally
specifies that the holder is “substantially circular for
encompassing the curtain fabric and is provided with a spring-
loaded receiving opening adapted to be spread apart for
receiving or removing the curtain fabric against the action of
4In 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).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007