Appeal No. 1997-1731
Application No. 08/377,924
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellant’s specification and claims, the applied
teachings, and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the1
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
We do not sustain the rejection of appellant’s claims.
As disclosed by appellant (specification, page 16), die
elements can be constructed with different characteristics and
properties for handling different thermoplastic resins and/or
1In 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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007