Appeal No. 2003-0533
Application No. 09/511,183
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issues raised
in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellants’ specification 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.
We do not sustain any of the examiner’s eight rejections of
appellants’ claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Initially, we recognize that an object of appellant’s
invention (specification, page 3) is to provide
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).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007