Appeal No. 97-1144
Application 08/326,608
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
We reverse the examiner’s respective rejections of
claims 8 and 13. It follows that the dependent claims stand
therewith.
This panel of the board fully comprehends the
examiner’s point of view, as expressed in the answer (Paper
No. 17). However, for the reasons articulated below, we have
concluded that the claimed subject matter would not have been
obvious based upon the evidence of obviousness before us.
At the outset, we point out that, as disclosed
(specification, pages 1, 2, and 3), an objective of the invention
(easier to perform maintenance) is accomplished by providing a
2(...continued)
considered all of the disclosure of each teaching 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).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007