Appeal No. 2000-1914
Application No. 08/718,643
teachings, and the respective viewpoints of appellants and4
the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
This panel of the board reverses each of the examiner’s
rejections of appellants’ claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Our reasoning appears below.
At the outset, it is important to appreciate that each of
appellants’ respective independent device and method claims 1,
11, 28, 31, 40, and 48 requires, inter alia, a flow of “an
insect attractant”.
The primary reference relied upon by the examiner in each
of the obviousness rejections on appeal is the Deyoreo patent.
4In 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).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007