Appeal No. 96-3332
Application 08/321,025
Claims 5, 6, 10, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell, as applied above,
further in view of Cohausz.2
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response
to the argument presented by appellants appears in the main
and supplemental answers (Paper Nos. 9, 11, and 13), while the
complete statement of appellants’ argument can be found in the
main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 7 and 12).
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
teachings, and the respective viewpoints of appellants and3
2This was a new ground of rejection set forth in the main answer (Paper No. 9),
as corrected by the supplemental answer dated Sep. 28, 1995 (Paper No. 11), applying the
newly cited Cohausz reference.
3In 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).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007