Appeal No. 96-0405
Application No. 08/178,668
from which it depends. In light of the above, and consistent
with 37 CFR
§ 1.196(c)(7), we select claims 23 and 25 for review, with
claims 24 and 26 through 29 and claim 30 respectively standing
or falling therewith.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellant’s specification and claims, the applied 4
patents, and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the5
4Claims 23, 24, 25 and 26 specify a first corrugated
“substantially parallel” rigid section. Because we are
uncertain as to the meaning of the recitation “substantially
parallel” in the context used in the claim, and in light of
the underlying disclosure, we introduce a new indefiniteness
rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, infra. Nevertheless, we
understand the claimed subject matter to the extent that we
can fairly evaluate the claims on appeal relative to the
evidence of obviousness, as applied in the examiner’s
rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
5In 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
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007