Appeal No. 98-1295
Application No. 08/325,361
examiner and the appellants as set forth in the Answer and the
Briefs.
The Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
It is axiomatic that anticipation under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) is established only when a single prior art reference
discloses, either expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention.
See, for example, In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31
USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d
705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It is the
examiner’s view that independent claim 1 is anticipated by
both Veenema and Powell. We do not agree, and therefore we
will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or, it follows, of
claims 2, 3, 5-8, 15 and 17, which depend therefrom. Our
reasons for arriving at this conclusion follow.
Claim 1 recites a number of panels, at least one of which
has blast attenuating properties, and states that the panels
be
joined together to form an enclosure by joint means that
provide a relatively rigid joint between joined panels under
normal handling loads and “a relatively flexible hinged joint
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007