Appeal No. 1999-0524
Application 08/735,228
the argument presented by appellant appears in the answer
(Paper No. 9), while the complete statement of appellant’s
argument can be found in the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos.
8 and 10).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellant’s specification and claims, the applied
patents, and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the3
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 4 through
3In our evaluation of the applied documents, 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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007