Appeal No. 200-0713
Application No. 09/494,935
No. 25), while the complete statement of appellant’s argument can
be found in the main substitute appeal brief and the reply brief
(Paper Nos. 24 and 26).
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 the
first (Nov. 21, 2001) and supplemental (Dec. 27, 2001)
declarations of John M. Winter, Jr., 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 rejections of the claims on appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007