Appeal No. 99-0952
Application 08/795,494
rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 10 and 15), while the
complete statement of appellants’ argument can be found in the
main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 14 and 16).
In the main brief (page 4), appellants indicate
that”[a]ll claims are patentable for similar reasons and stand
together.” Accordingly, we focus our attention exclusively
upon the content of independent claim 9, with the remaining
claims 10 through 16 standing or falling therewith.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellants’ specification and claim 9, the applied patents,2
and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner.
2 In our evaluation of the applied patents, 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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007