Appeal No. 2002-0847
Application 09/139,607
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hawkins in view of Hunger, as applied to claim
1 above, further in view of Townsend.
The full text of the examiner’s rejections and response to
the argument presented by appellant appears in the answer (Paper
No. 11), while the complete statement of appellant’s argument can
be found in the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 10 and 12).
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,1 and
the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As 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 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007