Appeal No. 98-1354
Application 08/218,507
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 applied
patent, and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the1
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of appellants’ claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
At the outset, we note that independent claim 22 is drawn
to a portable cutter for cutting conduit comprising, in
combination, inter alia, a housing , a carriage slidably
1In 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).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007