Appeal No. 2001-1404
Application No. 09/145,399
(Paper No. 18), while the complete statement of appellants’
argument can be found in the main, supplemental, and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 15, 17, and 19).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the Board has carefully considered
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied teachings, 2 3
and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner.
2We note that appellant’s copy of claim 6 in the APPENDIX
is as amended pursuant to the AMENDMENT AFTER APPEAL (Paper
No. 14), which amendment was entered by the examiner, as
acknowledged on page 5 of Paper No. 16.
3In 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).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007