Appeal No. 2001-1390
Application No. 08/922,599
The full text of the examiner's rejection and response to
the argument presented by appellants appears in the answer (Paper
No. 22), while the complete statement of appellants' argument can
be found in the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 21 and 24).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue raised
in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellants' specification and claims, the applied document,3 the
declaration of Beaufort M. Lancaster (one of the named
inventors), and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
3 In our evaluation of the applied reference, we have
considered all of the disclosure of the 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