Appeal No. 96-3845
Application No. 08/209,260
Austin.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response to
the argument presented by appellant appears in the final
rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 10 and 14), while the complete
statement of appellant’s argument can be found in the main and
reply briefs (Paper Nos. 13 and 15).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied teachings, 2 3
2As to claim 1, we understand the recited method as
implicitly including a step of positioning said first capsule
receiving plates within said opener/encapsulater component since
the step of “removing said first capsule receiving plates from
said opener/encapsulater component” is expressly set forth.
3In our evaluation of the applied teachings, we have
considered all of the disclosure of each teaching 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
Cont...
from the disclosure. See In re Preda 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ
342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007