Appeal No. 95-3406
Application 07/940,016
OPINION
Our evaluation of the patentability issues raised in
this appeal has included a careful assessment of appellant’s
specification and claims, the applied prior art, and the
respective positions advanced by the appellant and the examiner.
With respect to the applied reference, we have considered all of
the disclosure of that reference 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, we have
taken into account not only the specific teachings of the
reference, but also the inferences which one skilled in the art
would have reasonably been expected to draw from the disclosure
of that reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ
342, 344 (CCPA 1968). On the basis of the knowledge and level of
skill in the art at the time of appellant’s invention, as
reflected by the applied reference, it is our conclusion that the
examiner's rejections of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and of
claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are well founded, but that the
rejections of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and of claim 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are not. Additionally, we have added a
new rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007