Appeal No. 2000-1279
Application No. 09/053,025
The full text of the examiner’s rejections and response
to the argument presented by appellant appears in the final
rejection and the answer (Paper Nos. 5 and 11), while the
complete statement of appellant’s argument can be found in the
main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 10 and 12).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issues
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
assessed appellant’s specification and claims, the applied 2
teachings, and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the3
2As to claims 18 and 21, in light of the underlying
specification (page 25), we understand the “increasing” step
to relate to the different first and second engine settings.
3In 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).
(continued...)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007