Appeal No. 1999-2327
Application No. 08/168,235
Claims 1, 5 through 13, and 16 through 19 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Heidenreich
‘517 in view of Heidenreich ‘909, Entrup, and Kohler.
The full text of the examiner’s rejection and response to
the argument presented by appellants appears in the answer
(Paper No. 16), while the complete statement of appellants’
argument can be found in the brief (Paper No. 15).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellants’ specification and claims, the applied
teachings, and the respective viewpoints of appellants and2
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
(continued...)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007