Appeal No. 97-3345
Application 08/332,936
considered appellant’s specification and claims, the applied
patents, and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the2
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the deter-
minations which follow.
The rejection of claims 14 through 18, 33, and 34
We affirm the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. It follows that the rejection of claims 15 through 18
is
likewise affirmed since these claims stand or fall therewith,
as previously indicated.
2In our evaluation of the applied patents, we have
considered all of the disclosure thereof 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 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007