Appeal No. 97-1151
Application 08/380,824
the answer (Paper No. 8), while the complete statement of
appellants’ argument can be found in the brief (Paper No. 7). 2
In the brief (page 6), appellants indicate that the
rejected claims do not stand or fall together.
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
patents, and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the3
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
2In response to an ORDER FOR COMPLIANCE (Paper No.9),
appellants submitted a paper labeled "SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY
BRIEF" (Paper No. 10) providing information omitted from the
brief filed August 8, 1996 (Paper No. 7).
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).
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