Appeal No. 1998-0490
Application 08/543,057
Claims 1 through 4, 9, 10, and 12 through 16 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim
in view of Romano.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response
to the argument presented by appellant appears in the answer
(Paper No. 14), while the complete statement of appellant’s
argument can be found in the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos.
13 and 15).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
2 3
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied patents,
2 Claim 14 lacks explicit antecedent basis for “said top edge” and “said bottom
edge” (line 5). Nevertheless, we understand the claim as requiring a sunshield with a
top edge and a bottom edge. The noted lack of a proper antecedent basis should be
remedied during any further prosecution before the examiner.
3 In our evaluation of the applied references, we have considered all of the
disclosure of each document 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).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007