Appeal No. 98-3288
Application 08/630,304
argument can be found in the brief (Paper No. 13).
In the brief (page 5), appellants indicate that claims 1
and 11 stand or fall together. Accordingly, we select claim 1
for
review and focus exclusively thereon, infra. See 37 CFR
1.192(c)(7).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellants’ specification, claims 1 and 11, the 2
applied patents, and the respective viewpoints of appellants3
2 Read in light of the underlying disclosure (specification, page 7), we
understand claim 1 as setting forth “side” sections (i.e. two side sections) to support
the claimed recitation of the sections forming a “continuous” corrugated structure.
3 In 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).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007