Appeal No. 1998-0910
Application No. 08/454,596
claims 3 and 5 through 8 and claim 4, respectively, standing
or falling therewith.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the Board has carefully considered
appellant’s specification, claims, and drawing, the evidence
of obviousness, and the respective viewpoints of appellant3
and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The indefiniteness issue
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
3In our evaluation of the applied patents, 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).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007