Appeal No. 2001-1794
Application No. 08/882,787
Claims 1, 4, and 6 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the Japanese reference
(Nagai) in view of Ames-Ooten, Toyoda, and Kao (Hayase).
The full text of the examiner’s rejection and response to
the argument presented by appellants appears in the answer (Paper
No. 26), while the complete statement of appellants’ argument can
be found in the brief (Paper No. 25).
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 teachings4, and
4
4 In 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