Appeal No. 2004-1897
Application No. 09/455,664
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the Board has carefully considered
2
appellants' specification1 and claims, the applied teachings,
and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner. As
a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
1 As is evident from appellants' disclosure (specification,
pages 1 and 2), prior to the present invention it was known in
the art to position a filter (plastic frame having windows
covered by fine filter mesh) and a scale collector (a body of
stainless steel wire or mesh compacted into the form of a small
ball-like block) in a water kettle. The examiner, infra, relies
upon the teaching of O'Flynn alone as anticipatory of independent
claim 15 (a scale collector coupled to the frame of a filter).
2
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).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007