Appeal No. 1999-1748
Application 08/846,285
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue raised
in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellants’ specification and claims,2 the applied teachings,3
and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner. As
a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
2 We comprehend the metes and bounds of the claims on appeal
notwithstanding the presence therein of certain language as
follows. As to claim 1 and claim 19, we understand, in light of
appellants’ disclosure, that impressed or applied voltage creates
spark plasma in conjunction with the metal foil ignitor or strip
(perforation distortion), rather than each of voltage and the
strip individually creating spark plasma as set forth. In claim
19, line 3, obviously “said perforation” should be --said
perforation distortion--.
3 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).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007