Appeal No. 2002-1220
Application 08/940,601
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.
The first rejection
We sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by and, in the alternative, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Brinon. It follows that we
likewise sustain the rejection of claims 2 through 5 and 10
through 12 since these dependent claims stand or fall with
claims 1 and 9, respectively, as earlier indicated.
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).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007