Appeal No. 2003-1358
Application No. 09/963,910
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the anticipation and
obviousness issues raised in this appeal, this panel of the board
has carefully considered appellant’s specification and claims,
the applied teachings,1 and the respective viewpoints of
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
make the determinations which follow.
Anticipation
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Van Nostrand, and likewise sustain the
rejection of claim 2 on this same ground since it stands or falls
with claim 1 as earlier indicated.
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 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007