Appeal No. 96-1337
Application 08/229,804
the argument presented by appellants appears in the answer
(Paper
No. 9), while the complete statement of appellants’ argument
can be found in the brief (Paper No. 8).2
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellants’ specification and claims, the applied 3
patents, and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the4
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
2 A supplement to the brief (Paper No. 14) was filed, pursuant to an
order for compliance (Paper No. 13), to provide information omitted from the
brief.
3We note that while claim 1, line 3 and dependent claims (e.g., claims
2 and 8) recite a “main frame”, lines 10 and 14 of claim 1 set forth a “main
frame member”. This inconsistency should be remedied during any further
prosecution before the examiner.
4In 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). 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).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007