Appeal No. 1998-2057 Page 5
Application 08/331,541
may be grouped into three separate groups. In accordance with
37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(7), we select independent claim 23 as
being representative of Group II and independent claim 28 as
being representative of Group III. We have decided this
appeal as to claims 23 through 31 on the basis of these claims
alone, with the claims dependent on claims 23 and 28 standing
or falling with their respective independent claim.
In our evaluation of the applied prior art, we have
considered all of the disclosures of the respective relied
upon prior art for what it fairly teaches one having ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ
507, 510 (CCPA 1966). Further, we have taken into account not
only the specific teachings of the prior art relied upon, but
also the inferences which one skilled in the art would
reasonably be expected to draw from each disclosure. See In
re Preda,
401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). In this
regard, we note that we have presumed skill on the part of the
artisan practicing the art here involved, rather than the
converse. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 742, 226 USPQ 771,
774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007