Ex parte MILETI - Page 4

                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).                                                                                         


                         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                                                                    

                         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                                                                
                         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).                                                                                 


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007