Appeal No. 95-3283
Application No. 08/050,911
through 20 stand rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being
unpatentable over Van Veldhuizen in view of Wright.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being
unpatentable over Van Veldhuizen in view of Wright, further in
view of Stout.
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. 9 and 15), while the complete
statement of appellant’s argument can be found in the brief
(Paper No. 13).
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 teachings, and 3
3In 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). Cont...
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
from the disclosure. See In re Preda 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007