Appeal No. 1997-4430
Application 08/421,463
to the argument presented by appellant appears in the answer
(Paper No. 57), while the complete statement of appellant’s
argument can be found in the brief (Paper No. 55).
In the brief (page 5), appellant groups the claims as
follows. The first group includes claims 39 through 41, with
claim 40 separately patentable from claim 39. The second
group includes claims 61 through 66, with claims 63 through 66
separately patentable from claim 6 (sic, claim 61).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied references,3
3 In 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
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 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007