Appeal No. 97-2907
Application 08/314,146
considered appellant’s specification and claims, the applied 5
teachings, and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the6
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Initially, it is noted that an obviousness question
cannot be approached on the basis that an artisan having
ordinary skill would have known only what they read in
references, because such artisan must be presumed to know
something about the art apart from what the references
disclose. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ 317,
319 (CCPA 1962). Further, a conclusion of obviousness may be
5 Claim 1 sets forth a housing (line 2) and an incremental dispenser (line 7),
but fails to recite that the housing is part of the dispenser unit, as disclosed
(specification, page 9) and claimed (“said housing of said incremental dispenser” on
line 14). We understand claim 1, when read in light of the disclosure. However, the
claim language problem raised, supra, should be resolved during any further prosecution
before the examiner.
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).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007