Appeal No. 1999-0233
Application No. 08/787,893
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue raised
in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellant’s specification and claims,2 the applied teaching,3 and
the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determination which
follows.
We do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of appellant’s
claims.
2 We have perceived a number of informalities in the claims
which we focus upon in a remand to the examiner, infra.
3
3 In our evaluation of the applied prior art, we have
considered all of the disclosure of the specified 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