Appeal No. 2002-0331
Application No. 09/382,735
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
2
appellant’s specification1 and claims, the applied teachings,
and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As
a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
1 We are informed by appellant (specification, page 3) of
the patent to Haire; U.S. Patent No. 5,098,115. The locking means
40 on a dolly in the Haire document, akin to appellant’s locking
mechanism, restrains pivotal movement during backing up of
trailers.
2
2 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