Appeal No. 1998-2866
Application No. 08/548,441
while appellants’ argument can be found in the main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 9 and 11).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issues raised
in this appeal, we have fully considered appellants’
specification and claims, the applied teachings,1 and the
viewpoints of appellants and the examiner, respectively. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determination which
appears below.
We do not sustain the examiner’s respective rejections of
appellants’ claims.
1
1 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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007