Appeal No. 2003-0021
Application No. 08/983,383
appellant’s specification and method and structure claims, the
applied teachings,2 and the respective viewpoints of appellant
and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follow.
We cannot sustain the rejections on appeal.
In rejecting each of appellant’s independent claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the examiner has proposed to modify the vine
growing method and structure of Bruyere based upon the teachings
of Bollinger and Morssinkhof. Bruyere’s method for the
protection of vineyards from spring frost involves placement of
plastic film or sheet over a frame fastened to existing vine
stakes by ordinary nails. As to appellant’s spreader element
feature, the examiner refers us in Bruyere to elements with
welded hooks intended to receive and support wires; one such
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).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007