Appeal No. 96-0563
Application 07/540,839
the examiner and the appellants, we refer to pages 3 through 5
of the examiner's answer, to the supplemental answer, to pages
3 through 5 of the appellants' brief and to the reply brief
for the full exposition thereof.
OPINION
Our evaluation of the patentability issues raised in this
appeal has included a careful assessment of appellants'
specification and claims, the applied prior art, and the
respective positions advanced by the appellants and the
examiner. With respect to the applied references, we have
considered all of the disclosure of each 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 each reference, but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would have reasonably
been expected to draw from the disclosure. 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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007