Appeal No. 96-3549
Application 08/171,484
rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 6 and 14), while the complete
statement of appellants’ argument can be found in the brief.
(Paper No. 13).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the anticipation and
obviousness issues raised in this appeal, this panel of the board
has carefully considered appellants’ specification and claims,
the applied teachings2, and the respective viewpoints of
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
make the determinations which follow.
The rejection of claim 76 under 35 USC § 102(e)
We sustain the rejection of claim 76 under 35 USC § 102(e).
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 USC § 102, it
must be shown that each element of the claim is found, either
2 In 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).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007