Appeal No. 2001-0267
Application No. 08/980,352
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellants’ specification and claims, the applied 1
teachings, and the respective viewpoints of appellants and2
the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
1The amendment after final rejection (Paper No. 8) was
entered by the examiner (Paper No. 9), but the content thereof
has not been clerically entered. While the examiner has
indicated that the claims in the brief are correct (page 3 of
the answer), this is not the case. Claim 5 in the brief does
not show dependency from claim 6 and recite “said link means”,
consistent with the above-noted entered amendment after final
rejection.
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