Appeal No. 98-0459
Application 08/658,719
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issues raised
in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellants’ specification and claims, the applied patents, and 2
the respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
We reverse each of the examiner’s rejections of appellants’
claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
The contact lens storage compartment of Claim 1 comprises,
inter alia, a main storage body compartment having a hinged top
cover, and at least one additional lens storage compartment
“exterior” to the main storage compartment.
Reading the language of claim 1 in light of the underlying
disclosure, it is clear to this panel of the board that the claim
2In 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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007