Appeal No. 1999-1531
Application No. 08/675,912
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied teachings,2
and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner.
As a consequence of our review, we make the determination
which follows.
We cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of appellant’s
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 15 is drawn to a conveyor for advancing items in a
conveying direction, in combination with force-exerting means
for exerting an abutting force, the conveyor comprising, inter
alia,
2In our evaluation of the applied prior art, we have
considered all of the disclosure of each document 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