Appeal No. 1999-0931
Application 08/772,861
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
We are constrained to reverse the rejection on appeal
since the evidence does not support a conclusion of
obviousness, as further explained, infra.
Claims 1 and 11 (apparatus and method for sizing
sandpaper from bulk sheets) each expressly require, inter
alia, a substantially flat planar member, and a plurality of
indicia formed across and on a surface of the substantially
flat planar member including a central portion thereof within
a periphery of the member, with the planar member being used
for tearing a bulk sheet of sandpaper.
The patent to Freeman addresses a sandpaper tearing guide
(Fig. 1) which requires two coacting members, i.e., a cutter
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 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007