Appeal No. 1996-2963 Page 8
Application 07/952,427
appellants, other inert plastic materials such as polyethylene
are also taught as available options as discussed above.
It is not necessary for a finding of obviousness, that
the prior art references provide all of the specific reasons
as disclosed by appellants for doing what is herein claimed.
See In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311
(Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24
USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Furthermore, all of the
utilities or benefits of the claimed invention need not be
explicitly disclosed by the prior art references to render the
claimed subject matter unpatentable under section 103. See In
re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692, 696, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901, 1904
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (in banc), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904
(1991)). Therefore, in light of the reasons set forth above
and in the answer, we will sustain the examiner’s § 103
rejection of claims 1-7, 9 and 11-22.
Rejection of Claims 8 and 10
Appellants identify separately rejected claims 8 and 10
as a grouping of claims and indicate a desire for the
patentability of claims 8 and 10 to be considered apart from
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007