Appeal No. 2001-2563
Application No. 08/814,757
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
3
appellants’ specification and claims,2 the applied teachings,
and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner.4
As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
2 We are instructed by footnote 1 in appellants’ main brief
(page 3) that pursuant to a restriction requirement the species
of Figs. 10 through 14 is being prosecuted in this application.
3
3 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).
4 It is highly inappropriate and most regrettable that the
examiner failed to comply with the proper USPTO practice of fully
and directly responding to appellants’ arguments on appeal in the
argument section of the answer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007