Appeal No. 96-0908
Application 08/160,118
Appellants identify the following groups of claims (Br3):
(1) claims 1-3, 13-15, 26-39 [sic, 25-39];
(2) claims 4 and 16;
(3) claims 5 and 17;
(4) claims 6 and 18;
(5) claims 7 and 19;
(6) claims 40 and 42;
(7) claims 8 and 20;
(8) claims 9 and 21;
(9) claims 10 and 22;
(10) claims 41 and 42 [sic, 43];
(11) claims 11 and 23;
(12) claims 12 and 24.
The examiner regroups the claims (EA2), but we will follow
appellants' groupings.
Level of ordinary skill in the art
The references are considered to be representative of the
level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Oelrich,
579 F.2d 86, 91, 198 USPQ 210, 214 (CCPA 1978) ("the PTO
usually must evaluate both the scope and content of the prior
art and the level of ordinary skill solely on the cold words
of the literature"); In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579,
35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (the Board did not err
in adopting the approach that the level of skill in the art
was best determined by the references of record). Obviousness
is determined through the eyes of one of ordinary skill in the
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007