Appeal No. 96-1812
Application No. 07/984,762
In the brief (page 5), appellants indicates that the
features of dependent claims 26 through 34 and 36 through 42
are subordinary to features of respective independent claims
25 and 35 and should be considered in conjunction therewith.
Particularly in light of the lack of any separate arguments in
the brief being addressed relative to individual dependent
claims, appellants’ statement regarding the dependent claims,
supra, is considered to denote that these claims stand or fall
with their respective independent parent claim. Thus, we focus
our attention exclusively upon claims 25 and 35, infra.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellants’ specification and claims, the applied
patents, and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the2
2In our evaluation of the applied patents, we have
considered all of the disclosure thereof 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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007