Appeal No. 96-1869
Application 08/086,494
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
5 6
appellants’ specification and claims, the applied teachings,
and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner.
As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations
which follow.
The rejection of claims 3, 7, 8, 11, and 15
We reverse the rejection of the specified claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
5 It appears to us that the word “ducts” in claim 3 (line 6) may simply be a
typographical error, in light of the recitation of --posts-- and --bolts-- in the
specification (page 3, line 10).
6 In our evaluation of the applied teachings, we have considered all of the
disclosure of each teaching 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