Appeal No. 2002-2185
Application 08/976,361
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellants’ specification and claims,2 the applied teachings,3
the Declaration of Gary E. Dix executed Sept. 23, 1998, and the
respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
DESCRIPTION ISSUE
We sustain the rejection of claims 12, 14, 20, 23 through
25, 27, 31, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
lacking descriptive support in the original disclosure.
2 In the copies of claims 12 and 23 appended to the main
brief, “360E” is an obvious error since these claims in the
application file specify “360/”.
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
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 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007