Appeal No. 2000-0201
Application No. 08/691,330
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,1 and the respective viewpoints of appellants and
the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
We do not sustain the rejection of appellants’ claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Independent claim 1 is drawn to a device that requires,
inter alia, a display that compares a value (Fpossible)
indicating a maximum possible braking force with a value
(Factual) indicating an actual braking force. Independent claim
3 specifies, inter alia, a display which indicates to a driver
1 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 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007