Appeal No. 1998-0210
Application No. 08/149,193
4 5
appellants’ specification and claims, the applied teachings,
the respective abridged and unabridged videotapes submitted by
appellants, the respective declarations of John R. Cockrell,6
Jr. and George W. Hamilton, Jr., and the respective viewpoints
of appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations which follow.
4The following obvious informalities are deserving of
correction during any subsequent prosecution before the
examiner. In claim 113, line 19 “means” clearly should be --
ribs-- to correspond to its antecedent basis “traction ribs”
on line 12. In claim 123, line 15 “ribs” obviously should be -
-means-- for consistency with the recited “traction means” of
line 12. In claim 134, line 13 --traction-- should be inserted
before “ribs” to effect a consistent antecedent basis for
“said traction ribs” of line 15.
5In 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).
6The label secured to each of the abridged and unabridged
videotapes indicates that the videotape was presented at the
interview of March 6, 1996. In this decision, we shall focus
upon the content of the unabridged videotape.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007