Appeal No. 2001-0025
Application No. 08/751,980
13, 14, and 31 stand or fall together. In light of the above,
and consistent with 37 CFR 1.192(c)(7), we shall focus our
attention, infra, exclusively upon selected claims 9, 29, and
13. The remaining claims shall respectively stand or fall
with the claim selected from their group.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issues
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
assessed appellant’s specification and claims, the applied
teachings,3 the declaration of inventor and appellant Roland
3 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).
(continued...)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007