Appeal No. 1997-2975
Application 08/518,856
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hawthorne in view of either Ridenour or
Rudick, in view of Donkin, Walker, and Cooper, in view of
Swiss ‘714 and Yetter, and further in view of Puente.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response
to the argument presented by appellants appears in the answer
(Paper No. 24), while the complete statement of appellants’
argument can be found in the brief (Paper No. 23).
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 prior art
teachings relied upon, and the respective viewpoints of4
4In our evaluation of the applied documents, we have
considered all of the disclosure of each reference 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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007