Appeal No. 1999-0525
Application 08/590,859
being unpatentable over Alff in view of Hixson, II, as applied
above, further in view of Ishiguro.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response
to the argument presented by appellants appears in the answer
(Paper No. 21), while the complete statement of appellants’
argument can be found in the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos.
20 and 22).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issues
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellants’ specification and claims, the applied
patents, and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the2
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
2 In 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 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