Appeal No. 1997-2965
Application No. 08/534,110
The full text of the examiner’s rejection and response to
the argument presented by appellant appears in the answer
(Paper No. 11), while the complete statement of appellant’s
argument can be found in the brief (Paper No. 10).
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 the2
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
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