Appeal No. 95-4119
Application 08/155,877
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
We reverse each of the examiner’s rejections of
appellant’s claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We fully comprehend the respective teachings of the
prior art, as applied, as well as the reasoning of the exami-
ner as articulated in the rejections (answer, pages 3 through 6)
and in the response to appellant’s argument (answer, pages 6
through 9). However, as more fully explained, infra, this panel
of the board finds that the prior art evidence relied upon does
not address or suggest, for example, the plural pressing steps
of appellant’s method, i.e., the step of “pressing” of the die
assembly together to apply a loading to a deformable arcuate
material to effect a deformed material with waves and the step
of relaxing the loading and pressing the deformed material to a
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
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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007