Appeal No. 1998-1824
Application No. 08/463,383
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellants’ specification and claims, the applied
teaching, and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the2
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of appellants’ claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
2In our evaluation of the applied prior art, we have
considered all of the disclosure of the Linne 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 of the Linne
patent, 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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007