Appeal No. 97-2642 Page 17
Application No. 08/094,461
the art. Moreover, all that a reference discloses must be
evaluated for what it would have fairly taught one of ordinary
skill in the art (see In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 964, 148 USPQ
507, 510 (CCPA 1966)) and in evaluating such references it is
proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of
the references but also the inferences which one skilled in
the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (see In
re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)).
After considering the collective teachings of the applied
prior art, we agree with the examiner that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
appellant's invention to augment or replace Raymond's oil
heating system (i.e., the pressure drop across the restrictor
82) with a heating system utilizing exhaust gases as suggested
and taught by McEachern for the advantage of recovering and
utilizing the exhaust heat energy of Raymond's internal
combustion engine that would otherwise be lost to the
atmosphere especially in view of Jeppson's teaching of
utilizing hot exhaust gas to heat a screed.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007