Appeal No. 98-1960
Application No. 08/673,921
claims 2 through 13 and 20 through 22, the claims stand or
fall together. Accordingly, as to the latter rejection, claim
2 is selected for review, and claims 3 through 13 and 20
through 22 shall stand or fall therewith. We, therefore,
focus our attention exclusively upon claims 1 and 2, infra.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied patents, 2 3
and
2In light of the underlying disclosure (specification,
page 6), we understand the recitation of a "second" abutment
relative to the detent in claim 2, notwithstanding that a
first abutment has not been claimed.
3In our evaluation of the applied patents, 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).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007