Appeal No. 1999-0512
Application No. 08/701,979
appellants’ specification and claims, the applied teachings, 1 2
and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner.
As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations
which follow.
Claim 1
We affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b). It follows that we likewise affirm the rejection of
claims 2 through 5, 7, 9, 20, and 39 since these claims stand
or fall with claim 1. Our reasoning follows.
1In claim 1, line 10, “distal” should apparently be
--proximal--, in light of the underlying disclosure. This
matter is addressed in a remand to the examiner, infra.
2In 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