Appeal No. 2000-0651
Application No. 09/024,732
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied teachings,1
and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner.
As a consequence of our review, we make the determination
which follows.
We cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 9
through 16.
Claim 9, the sole independent claim in the application,
is drawn to a urethral drain apparatus comprising, inter alia,
1In 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