Appeal No. 96-1904
Application 08/164,854
teachings, and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the6
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
We affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 3 through 8.
This rejection, focusing upon the lack of support in
the original disclosure for language added to claim 1 (Paper
No. 3), clearly addresses the description requirement of
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
5(...continued)
in parent claims 11, 14, and 17, respectively.
6In our evaluation of the applied teachings, we have
considered all of the disclosure of each teaching 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).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007