Appeal No. 1998-0463
Application No. 08/450,849
18, 20, and 22, the applied patents, and the respective 2
viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Claim 1
We reverse the rejection of claim 1. It follows that the
rejection of dependent claims 2 through 17, which stand or
fall with claim 1, is likewise reversed.
An argued feature of the claim 1 device is the
“automatically turning on or off” of a circuit connected to a
current probe. The examiner concludes (page 3 of Paper No. 4)
2In our evaluation of the applied references, 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).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007