Appeal No. 1999-0028
Application No. 08/513,610
Claims 12 and 16 through 19 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over McMahon in view of
Sklar.
The full text of the examiner’s rejections and response
to the argument presented by appellant appears in the answer
(Paper No. 13), while the complete statement of appellants’
argument can be found in the brief (Paper No. 12).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied teachings,1
and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner.
1In 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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007