Appeal No. 1997-4246 Application No. 08/542,085 being unpatentable over Daimler-Benz, as applied to claims 9 and 20 above, further in view of Chiarella. The full text of the examiner’s rejections and response to the argument presented by appellants appears in the answer (Paper No. 15), while the complete statement of appellants’ argument can be found in the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 14 and 17). OPINION In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issues raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered appellants’ specification and claims, the applied references, and the respective viewpoints of appellants and1 the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the 1In our evaluation of the applied documents, 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). 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007