Appeal No. 97-4082
Application 08/365,849
patents, and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the3
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The rejection of claim 1
We reverse the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §
103. It follows that the rejection of claims 4, 7, 13, 17, 18,
23 through 25, and 28 through 35 likewise is reversed since
these claims stand or fall with claim 1.
Consistent with the underlying disclosure in the present
application of at least two resilient members 30 and 32
interconnected by slide blocks 20, 22 (specification, page 8),
3 In our evaluation of the applied patents, we have considered all of the
disclosure of each patent 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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007