Appeal No. 1997-2041
Application No. 08/337,131
Claims 1-5, 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Hosokawa (JP59-229874) in view of Chen or
Wolf.
Rather than reiterate the examiner’s full statement of the
above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and appellant regarding those rejections, we
make reference to both examiner’s answers (Paper Nos. 24 and
26, respectively) for the examiner’s reasoning in support of
the rejections, and appellant’s main brief (Paper No. 23) and
reply brief (Paper No. 25) for appellant’s arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references , and to the respective3
In our evaluation of the applied teachings, we have considered all of3
the disclosure of each teaching 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
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007