Appeal No. 2004-1892
Application No. 10/197,472
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue1 raised
in this appeal, this panel of the Board has carefully considered
3
appellants' specification and claims,2 the applied teachings,
and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner. As
1 The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091
(Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ
871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
2 Claim 27 sets forth a boat windshield bottom trim element
in its preamble but the claim also encompasses, by positive
recitation (a bottom portion "connected to"), a boat and a
plurality of fixing elements. Similarly, the boat windshield
bottom trim element of dependent claim 32 additionally
encompasses at least one fastener and a boat cover or canopy. We
understand the fastener-receiving side opening of the middle
portion as being separate and independent from the upper and
bottom portions since the trim element is disclosed as being an
extrusion, i.e., all portions of the trim element are joined
together.
3
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).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007