Appeal No. 1999-2245
Application No. 08/705,388
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response
to the argument presented by appellant appears in the answer
(Paper No. 19), while the complete statement of appellant’s
argument can be found in the brief (Paper No. 18). 1
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 2
references, and the respective viewpoints of appellant and3
1Our reference to the “brief” is to the brief filed
February 22, 1999, superseding an earlier brief filed November
30, 1998 (Paper No. 16), which earlier brief was noted as
defective (Paper No. 17).
2In each of claims 11 and 12, last paragraph, the
inconsistent terms “liquid” and “said fluid” denote a minor
informality deserving of correction during any further
prosecution before the examiner.
3In our evaluation of the applied patents, 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,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007