Appeal No. 1999-1045
Application No. 08/651,759
the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
We do not sustain the respective rejections of appellant’s
claims. Our reasons appear below.
Initially, we note that appellant’s underlying specification
(page 6) addresses an advantage of “a means whereby the platform
can be made more stable by selectively engaging it with an
associated desk or other structure.” On page 31 of the
specification, a pair of forward stems 468 are disclosed, each of
which terminate in a mushroom-shaped forward head 469. It is
further indicated on page 31 that “[t]his may be covered by a
rubber cap if desired.” The following passages from the
3(...continued)
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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007