Appeal No. 2002-0263
Application No. 09/377533
(Paper No. 11), while the complete statement of appellants'
argument can be found in the brief (Paper No. 10).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
1 2
considered appellants' specification and claims, the applied
teachings, and the respective viewpoints of appellants and3
1In the specification, page 2, line 20, page 3, line 6,
page 4, line 16, page 5, line 1, page 6, line 26, page 7, line
10, and ABSTRACT, lines 7 and 21, the term "defuser" should
apparently be --diffuser--. In the specification, page 3,
line 25, and page 6, lines 6 and 18, the term "plunder" should
obviously be --plunger--. These informalities are deserving
of correction.
2In claim 15, line 5, "defuser" should apparently be --
diffuser--. This informality should be remedied during any
further prosecution before the examiner.
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
(continued...)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007