Appeal No. 98-0457
Application 08/604,813
language indefinite. Compare In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693,
169 USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA 1971) (breadth is not to be equated
with indefiniteness). It follows that we will not sustain the
examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection.
The § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 16
(rejection (b))
Considering next the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims
1 and 16, it is the examiner’s position that (1) it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of
appellants’ invention to provide the moisture barrier bag of
AAPA with a transparent window panel, and (2) the modified
AAPA bag would correspond to the subject matter of claims 1
and 16.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary
skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ
871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In evaluating the teachings of the
prior art, all of the disclosures of each reference should be
considered for what it would have fairly taught one of
ordinary skill in the art (In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007