Appeal No. 98-0605
Application 08/383,191
in independent claim 1. We also observe that in line 22 of
independent claim 1, "the exhaust port seal" has no clear
antecedent basis.
Claims 1-10, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Whitman. Initially, we note4
that all of the disclosures in a reference must be evaluated
for what they fairly teach one having ordinary skill in the
art (In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 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 (In re
Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826,
In rejecting independent claim 1 (and the claims which depend4
therefrom) under § 103, we base our understanding of the subject matter set
forth in independent claim 1 upon the following interpretation of the
terminology appearing therein. In line 10 (as it appears in the appendix to
the brief) we interpret "the blower having a seal" to be -- a housing
surrounding the blower and the housing having a seal --. Additionally, in
line 22, we interpret "the exhaust port seal" to be -- the housing seal --.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007