Appeal No. 1999-2674
Application No. 08/192,979
argument can be found in the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos.
21 and 23).
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,1 and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
We do not sustain the examiner’s respective rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
1 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 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007