Appeal No. 1998-1298
Application 08/544,962
appellants’ specification and claims, the applied teachings,1
and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner.
As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations
which follow.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 11, 13, and 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
We do not sustain the rejection of appellants’ claims
based upon the respective combined teachings of Goodman and
Foster ‘686, Moser and Foster ‘686, Dreffein and Foster ‘686,
and Abraham and Foster ‘686.
The Goodman patent teaches two separate series of bars or
rods 2, 3 for supporting and carrying glass through a leer
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).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007