Appeal No. 2004-1197
Application No. 10/041,430
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue raised
in this appeal, this panel of the Board has carefully considered
appellant's specification and claims 1, 10, and 17, the applied
teachings,1 and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
We do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent
claims 1, 10, and 17, and likewise do not sustain the rejection
of the claims dependent therefrom since they stand or fall with
the independent claims, as earlier specified.
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