Appeal No. 2002-1151
Application No. 09/324,835
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied teachings,2 and
the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
Anticipation
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 22,
and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Oshita.
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is established only
when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or
2
2 In our evaluation of the applied prior art, 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).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007