Appeal No. 97-2712
Application 08/285,349
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised
in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully con-
sidered appellants’ specification and claims, the applied 3
teachings, and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the4
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
We reverse each of the examiner’s respective rejections
of appellants’ claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In our opinion, the combined teachings of the French
Patent and the Chadwick reference would not have been suggestive
to one having ordinary skill in the art of the modification pro-
posed by the examiner. Simply stated, we perceive no reason for
3Claim 24 sets forth a “generally rectangular external
shape” for the external ring means (specification, page 9).
However, we note that the appearance of the ring means in the
drawing (Figure 1) is generally square.
4In our evaluation of the applied teachings, we have
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 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007