Appeal No. 96-1726
Application 08/146,498
and Schwarze, as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, further in view
of Krzewinski.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response
to the argument presented by appellant appears in the answer
(Paper No. 14), while the complete statement of appellant’s
argument can be found in the brief (Paper No. 13).
Based upon appellant’s grouping of claims (brief,
page 5), we focus our attention below upon independent claims 1
and 7, with respective dependent claims 2 through 6 and 8
through 11 standing or falling therewith.
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, and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the2
2In 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
(continued...)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007