Ex parte MOORMAN - Page 3

          Appeal No. 95-3406                                                          
          Application 07/940,016                                                      

               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            


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007