Ex parte HENSEL - Page 3




                 Appeal No. 1999-1487                                                                                                                   
                 Application No. 08/591,599                                                                                                             


                          The full text of the examiner’s rejections and response                                                                       
                 to the argument presented by appellant appears in the answer                                                                           
                 (Paper No. 16), while the complete statement of appellant’s                                                                            
                 argument can be found in the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos.                                                                         
                 15 and 17).                                                                                                                            


                                                                     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.                                                                           
                 As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations                                                                             
                 which follow.                                                                                                                          



                          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  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007