Appeal No. 1997-2398
Application No. 08/354,929
rejections, we make reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 15) for the examiner’s reasoning in support of the
rejection, and appellant’s main and reply briefs (Paper No. 14
and Paper No. 16, respectively) for appellant’s arguments
thereagainst.
Appellant has indicated that claims 1, 2, 8-12 and 22 all
stand or fall together (Brief, page 3). Accordingly, we
select claim 1 for review and shall decide the appeal on the
basis of this claim alone in keeping with 37 CFR §
1.192(c)(7).
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 respective 2
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we will not sustain the examiner’s
2In our evaluation of the applied teachings, we have
considered all of 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 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 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007