Appeal No. 97-2145
Application 08/566,120
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied patent, and4 5
the
respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
We reverse each of the respective rejections of
appellant’s claims 1 and 4.
At the outset, we note that, at the time of appellant’s
invention, sun catchers formed of translucent panels with
integral designs or pictures imprinted thereon were known in the
art (specification, page 1).
4We understand the term “etching-like” design in claim 1,
in light of appellant’s specification (page 3), as reflecting,
for example, typical silk-screened pictorial displays.
5In our evaluation of the applied patent, 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).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007