Appeal No. 98-0358
Application 08/660,719
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
determinations which follow.
We affirm the rejection of claims 1 through 5 under 35
U.S.C. §103. Our reasoning in support of this stated
conclusion appears below.
At the outset, we note that a reading of claim 1 in its
entirety makes it apparent to us that a burner device per se
is being claimed, notwithstanding appellants’ perception to
the contrary (main brief, page 4). The preamble of the claim
specifies a burner emission device and the body of the claim
positively sets forth features thereof, with only the
“whereby” clause making reference to other than the burner
emission device. However, contrary to the impression given by
In our evaluation of the applied patents, we have considered all of3
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 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007