Appeal No. 1997-1479
Application No. 08/418,579
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellants’ specification, drawings, and claims 15
and 16, the applied teachings, the declaration of Michael J.1
Motti dated August 28, 1996 incorporating therein appended
purchase orders, the declaration of Roberta Leichtz dated
September 2, 1996, the declaration of Matt Anderson dated
August 13, 1996, the declaration of William E. Kriegsman, Jr.
dated August 12, 1996, the declaration of George Angus, Jr.
dated August 13, 1996, the declaration of Eric T. Van Cise
dated August 8, 1996, the declaration of David J. Vastola
dated August 9, 1996, the declaration of Katherine G. Lewis
dated August 8, 1996, the declaration of Alice Kerr dated
August 8, 1996, the declaration of Michael W. Lary dated
1In our evaluation of the applied prior art, 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).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007