Appeal No. 98-0430
Application 08/688,141
lant’s argument can be found in the main and reply briefs
(Paper Nos. 13 and 15).3
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issues
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellant’s specification and claims, the applied
teachings, and the respective viewpoints of appellant and4
3On September 17, 1998, Craig R. Feinberg, a Program and
Resource Administrator at the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences, discussed an amendment to claim 9, filed with
the reply brief, with the examiner, and determined that the
examiner entered this amendment. Thus, we have assessed claim
9 as including this amendment. The clerical entry of the
amendment should be made during any further prosecution before
the examiner.
4In 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 infer-
ences 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