Appeal No. 1996-3995
Application 08/283,721
(O/W-type emulsion).” (page 9, first full paragraph). “All
the disclosures in a reference must be evaluated, including
nonpreferred embodiments. [Citation omitted].” In re Mills,
470 F.2d 649, 651, 176 USPQ 196, 198 (CCPA 1972). Nothing in
the patent statute requires that the claimed subject matter be
superior to the prior art to be patentable. Ryco Inc. v. Ag-
bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 1424, 8 USPQ2d 1323, 1328 (Fed. Cir.
1988). However, to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness, there must be some disclosure or teaching in the
reference evidence, or knowledge of one of ordinary skill in
the art, which would have suggested the claimed subject matter
to one of ordinary skill in the art.
A specific nonpreferred O/W type emulsion treatment is
disclosed on page 11 of JP ‘677. The amounts of each
component are far outside the ranges required by the claimed
subject matter. The examiner has failed to establish, by3
evidence or reasoning, why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have treated a cloth fabric with the preferred
composition of JP ‘677 with the expectation of producing a W/O
3For example, the amount of water is greater than 96%, the amount of oil
(turpentine) is 1.6%, and the amount of water-soluble polymer (Carbopol #934) is 0.6%
(see pages 10-11 of JP ‘677).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007