Appeal No. 97-1438
Application 08/339,142
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issues
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered
2 3
appellants’ specification and claims, the applied patents,
and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner.
As a consequence of our review, we make the determination
which follows.
We reverse each of the examiner’s rejections of
appellants’ claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning
appears below.
2 We understand the claimed subject matter but make note of the following matters
which are deserving of attention during any further prosecution before the examiner.
The “at least one follower” and “a fastener” of claim 5 should conform with the
positively recited “cam follower” of claim 1 and “adjustable fastener” of claim 3,
respectively. The language “upper limb supporter” (claim 19) and “lower limb
supporter” (claim 20) should conform with the language of parent claims 17 and 18,
respectively.
3 In our evaluation of the applied patents, we have considered all of the
disclosure of each patent 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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007