Appeal No. 2005-0141
Application No. 09/656,683
In the main brief (page 3), appellant establishes claims 1
through 3, 5 through 9, and 11 as one group and claims 4 and 10
as another group, and suggests that we select claims 1 and 4 for
review from the respective groups. This panel of the Board
selects claims 1 and 4 for consideration, infra, with the
remaining claims of each grouping standing or falling with the
selected claim of the grouping.
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,2 and
the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determination which
follows.
2
2 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).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007