Appeal No. 1999-0178
Application No. 08/658,849
The full text of the examiner’s rejections and response
to the argument presented by appellants appears in the office
action
of December 19, 1996 (Paper No. 4) and the answer (Paper No.
13), while the complete statement of appellants’ argument can
be found in the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 12 and 16).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issues
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellants’ specification and claims, the applied
teachings, and the respective viewpoints of appellants and4
the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
4In 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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007