Appeal No. 1998-0491
Application 08/125,002
(Paper No. 28), while the complete statement of appellants’
argument can be found in the brief (Paper No. 27).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellants’ specification and claims, the evidence
of obviousness, and the respective viewpoints of appellants2
and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
We reverse the rejection of claims 27 through 37, 39, and
42 through 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Reik.
2 In our evaluation of the applied patent, we have considered all of the
disclosure thereof 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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007