Appeal No. 2002-1464
Application No. 09/213,710
The full text of the examiner’s rejections and response to
the argument presented by appellants appears in the answer (Paper
No. 18), while the complete statement of appellants’ argument can
be found in the brief (Paper No. 17).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issues raised
in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellants’ specification1 and claims, the applied teachings,2
and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner. As
a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
1 We note that, in the “Background of the Invention” section
of appellant’s specification (page 4), there is a discussion of a
related art technique of using titanium nitride (TiN) coatings
(of unspecified thickness) on fuel injector plungers to reduce
wear. Additionally, we make reference to the “Examples” section
of the specification (pages 19 and 20) which compare a baseline
plunger with coated plungers. No mention is made of plunger
material or coating thickness.
2 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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007