Appeal No. 1999-2542
Application No. 08/832654
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issues
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellants’ specification, drawing Figures 1
through 5, independent claim 4, the applied references, and 2
the respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner. As
a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
We reverse the examiner’s respective rejections of
appellant’s claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 4, the sole independent claim, addresses a
connector rod for a loom, with the connector rod comprising,
inter alia, forked rod ends, each forked rod end comprising a
conical wall surrounding a countersunk conical recess, the
2In our evaluation of the documents relied upon, we have
considered all of the disclosure of each reference 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).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007