Appeal No. 2000-0014
Application No. 08/747,927
appellants’ specification and claims, 1 the applied teachings,2
and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner. As
a consequence of our review, we make the determination which
follows.
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of appellants’ claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The examiner has relied upon the teaching of Tsai as the
basis for a suggestion to provide the Krambeck apparatus with a
venturi. We fully appreciate the examiner’s point of view.
However, as a reading of the Tsai patent reveals, the patentee
teaches a venturi-shaped throat as part of a valve for
1 We fairly understand the metes and bounds of the claimed
subject matter and are thus able to assess the obviousness
rejection on appeal. Nevertheless, we have observed certain
informalities deserving of correction which are addressed in the
“REMAND TO THE EXAMINER” below.
2 In 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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007