Appeal No. 98-0409
Application 08/420,480
arrangement of Goss wherein all of the cartridge receivers are
slidably engaged with the rack portion and are all removable
and replaceable together as a unit.
The appellants also contend that they "were able to solve
problems that were never addressed by Goss" (brief, page 9).
We must point out, however, that all the utilities or benefits
of the claimed invention need not be explicitly disclosed by
the prior art references to render the claim unpatentable
under section 103 (see In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692, 696,
16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901, 1904 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (in banc). See
also In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311 (Fed.
Cir. 1996) (“all the benefits of the claimed invention need
not be explicitly disclosed to render the claim unpatentable
under section 103").
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the rejection
of claims 1-3, 5, 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatent-able over Goss.
Turning to the rejection of claims 10, 11 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Goss, independent
claim 10 (as the appellants have argued) requires that each of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007