Appeal No. 1998-2656
Application No. 08/523,535
The examiner's rejections and response to the argument
made by appellant appears in the answer (Paper No. 13), while
appellant's argument can be found in the brief (Paper No. 1
12).
OPINION
In assessing the obviousness issues on appeal, we have
carefully reviewed appellant's specification and claims, the
prior art teachings relied upon, and the points of view of2
1Appellant informs us (brief, page 2) of an appeal in
parent application Serial No. 08/419,907. A decision was
rendered in that appeal (Appeal No. 1998-0672) affirming the
examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. It is worthy of
noting that the referenced parent application appeal related
to a surgical patient monitor system, as distinguished from
the presently claimed anesthesia apparatus.
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