Appeal No. 1998-0380
Application No. 08/518,062
As to the grouping of claims (main brief, pages 5 and 6),
appellants make it clear that claims 1, 2, and 5 are
considered to be separately patentable. Therefore, we shall
focus on these claims, infra, while claim 6 shall stand or
fall with claims 1
or 2, from which it depends.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellants’ specification and claims, the applied teachings,1
and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner.
As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations
which follow.
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).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007