Appeal No. 1999-2755
Application No. 08/599,105
In the brief (p. 3), the appellant indicates that the
claims stand or fall together. Accordingly, in conformance
with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), we select claim 5 for review, and
shall focus exclusively thereon, infra. The remaining claims
will stand or fall with claim 5.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the Board has carefully
considered the appellant’s specification and claims, the AAPA,
the applied patent, and the respective viewpoints of the2
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review,
we make the determination which follows.
We sustain the rejection of the appellant’s claim 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. It follows that the rejection of claims 1
and 11 is likewise sustained, since these claims stand or fall
2In our evaluation of Takahashi, we have considered all
of the disclosure of the 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 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007