Appeal No. 96-2404
Application No. 08/112,446
inventors were involved. In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202
USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979). As for the appellants’ above
mentioned “preference” argument, we here emphasize the well
settled principal that an applied reference may be relied upon
for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one with
ordinary skill in the art including not only preferred
embodiments but less preferred or even nonpreferred
embodiments. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874
F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846. Moreover, a number of
the reasons advanced by Shorin for preferring a separation
layer feature over a non-adhesive area feature seem to be
unique to patentee’s game board article (e.g., see lines 9
through 22 in column 2) and clearly not applicable to a card
structure of the type disclosed in the UK reference and
claimed by the appellants. Under these circumstances, it is
our determination that Shorin, rather than teaching away as
argued by the appellants, would have provided an artisan with
ordinary skill with the requisite suggestion as well as a
reasonable expectation of success for the proposed
modification under review. In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894,
904, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007