Appeal No. 2000-1415
Application 09/197,947
(Paper No.12), while the complete statement of appellants’
argument can be found in the brief (Paper No. 11).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellants’ specification, drawing, and claims 20
and 23, the applied teachings, and the respective viewpoints1 2
of appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determination which follows.
1The specification should be amended to provide clear
support and antecedent basis for the terms and phrases used in
the claims; 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
2In 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