Appeal No. 1998-1609
Application No. 08/589022
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied teachings,3
and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner.
As a consequence of our review, we make the determination
which follows.
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through
15.
In the specification (pages 32 and 33), appellant
explains the advantages of the legged brief version 50c of the
invention (Fig. 6). In particular, the legged brief includes
an elastic waistband and also elastically encircles the thighs
of a wearer providing tension around the wearer’s legs, with
3In 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).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007