Appeal No. 1997-4188
Application No. 08/373,528
Claims 1, 3, 5 through 7, 10 through 15, and 28 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Japan
‘289 in view of Japan ‘676, Weaver, and Fedelem.
The full text of the examiner’s rejection and response to
the argument presented by appellants appears in the main and
supplemental answers (Paper Nos. 26 and 31), while the complete
statement of appellants’ argument can be found in the substitute
brief (Paper No. 30).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue raised
in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully assessed
appellants’ specification and claims, the applied teachings,2 and
the respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner. As a
2 In 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).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007