Appeal No. 2002-1445
Application No. 09/280,775
Claims 1, 2, 4 through 7, 9, 12 through 15, and 18 through
21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Suzuki in view of Scanlon.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response to
the argument presented by appellants appears in the answer (Paper
No. 17), while the complete statement of appellants' argument can
be found in the brief (Paper No. 16).2
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellants' specification and claims, the applied teachings,3 and
2 The examiner's objection regarding claims 18 and 21
(answer, page 3), discussed by appellants in the brief (page 9),
relates to a petitionable, not an appealable, matter. Therefore,
we shall not further comment thereon.
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
(continued...)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007