Appeal No. 1999-2047
Application No. 08/837,350
(Paper No. 15), while the complete statement of appellant’s
argument can be found in the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos.
14 and 16).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied teachings,2 3
and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner.
2Appellant’s disclosure informs us that, at the time of
the present invention, a conventional shielded corrugated tube
(Fig. 7) employed electroless plating but that "bubbles
generated during a plating process are collected in concave
portions in the corrugated tube, or a plating solution
remains, so that it is easy to produce a failure in plating."
(specification, pages 3 and 4)
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 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007