Appeal No. 2000-1416
Application No. 09/073,847
complete statement of appellant’s argument can be found in the
brief (Paper No. 15).
In the brief (page 2), appellant expressly indicates that
the claims stand or fall together. Consistent with 37 CFR 1
1.192(c)(7), we select claim 1 for review, with the remaining
claims standing or falling therewith.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issues
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellant’s specification and claims, the applied
teachings, the declaration of Thomas Michael McRoberts (the2
1The examiner’s statement in the answer (page 2)
regarding the grouping of claims is inaccurate.
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 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007