Appeal No. 2002-0421
Application No. 09/264,294
The examiner's rejections and response to the argument
presented by appellant appears in the answer (Paper No. 10),
while the complete statement of appellant's argument can be found
in the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 9 and 12).
In the brief (page 3), appellant groups claim 1 through 6
together. Thus, like the examiner (answer, page 3), it is clear
to us that these claims are intended to stand or fall together.
Accordingly, we select claim 1 for review, with the remaining
claims standing or falling therewith; 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
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,3 and
3 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