Appeal No. 1999-0523
Application 08/797,523
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Cohen in view of Halstrick.
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Cohen and Halstrick, as applied to
claims 1 and 7 above, further in view of Ferdinand.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and
response to the argument presented by appellants appears in
the answer (Paper No. 12), while the complete statement of
appellants’ argument can be found in the brief (Paper No. 11).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in
this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellants’ specification and claims, the applied patents,2
and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner.
2In our evaluation of the applied references, 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 infer-
ences 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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007