Appeal No. 98-1640
Application 08/535,850
In the main brief (page 6), appellants indicate that
claims 1, 11 through 17, and 19 stand or fall together.
Accordingly, we select claim 11, the broadest independent
claim, for review, consistent with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
However, since appellants make reference to claim 1 in their
argument, we shall also address the argued aspects of claim 1.
Claims 12 through 17, and 19 will stand or fall with claim 11.
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 1 and 11, the
applied patent and the respective viewpoints of appellants2
and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
2In 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 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007