Appeal No. 2002-1587
Application No. 09/102,882
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, the applied teachings,1 and
the respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determination which
follows.
We do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 18 and
19.
Independent claim 18 is drawn to a cable tie comprising,
inter alia, an elongate generally planar strap body having a
tail, a head, and strap teeth, an elongate strap passageway in
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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007