Appeal No. 2000-0653
Application No. 08/960,433
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 do not sustain the rejection of appellant's claims.
Independent claim 1 addresses a kinetic pressure fluid
bearing apparatus having a rotary shaft positioned to rotate
within a through hole of a sleeve that is mounted on a bearing
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 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007