Appeal No. 1999-1764
Application No. 08/827,544
the second declaration of David R. Johnstone executed June 10,
1998, the applied patents, and the respective viewpoints of5
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review,
we make the determination which follows.
We reverse each of the examiner’s rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
Initially, we refer to appellant’s statement in the
specification (page 5) that an “important feature” of the toy,
doll or stuffed creature mounting assembly is the use of a
buckle part (buckle assembly), “like the buckle assembly in a
product” was displayed. Apart from the above information, we
are not informed of any specific details relative to these
trade shows; in particular, the dates thereof in 1996, of
relevance to the public use and on sale provision of 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
5In our evaluation of the applied references, 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).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007