Appeal No. 96-3885
Application No. 08/255,076
No. 11), while the complete statement of appellant’s argument can
be found in the brief (Paper No. 10).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issues raised
in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied patents, and3 4
the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determination which
follows.
We do not affirm any of the examiner’s rejections of
3In claims 1 and 19, lines 4 and 3, respectively, change
“A” from the upper case to the lower case --a--. Claim 1, line
8, “won” should apparently be --own--. Dependent claims 2, 3, 6,
and 7, line recite a “throwing” toy, while parent claim 1 does
not.
4In our evaluation of the applied patents, we have
considered all of the disclosure of each patent 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 teaching of each patent, but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably have
been expected to draw from the disclosure. See In re Preda 401
F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007