Appeal No. 2002-0694
Application No. 08/712,369
Claims 6 through 9, 18, 19, and 33 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heap in view of
Meyer.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response to
the argument presented by appellants appears in the answer (Paper
No. 21), while the complete statement of appellants' argument can
be found in the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 20 and 23).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the anticipation and
obviousness issues raised in this appeal, this panel of the board
has carefully considered appellants' specification and claims,
the applied teachings,1 and the respective viewpoints of
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 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007