Appeal No. 94-0591
Application 07/755,610
In reevaluating the claimed subject matter in light of
Wruble’s disclosure, the examiner may wish to consider the
following:
(1) Claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the description of the invention
in the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d
1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
(2) An examiner should refrain from inquiring whether
claimed subject matter is novel until after having ascertained
what subject matter is being claimed. In re Wilder,
429 F.2d 447, 450, 166 USPQ 545, 548 (CCPA 1970).
(3) Where the claimed subject matter and the prior art
subject matter reasonably appear to be identical or substantially
the same, it is proper to find a prima facie case of inherency.
In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-434; In re
Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972).
(4) All disclosures of the prior art must be considered,
including nonpreferred embodiments. In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d
747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976).
(5) Specific preferences in the prior art are material to
an analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Merck & Co., Inc. V. Biocraft
Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
- 15 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007