Appeal No. 1997-3189
Application 08/592,898
are exemplified. However, the fact that many are disclosed would
not have made any of them less obvious, particularly where, as
here, the formazan dyes recited in appellants’ claim are used for
the identical purpose taught by the reference. See Merck & Co.
v. Biocraft Laboratories, Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d
1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re
Lemin, 332 F.2d 839, 841, 141 USPQ 814, 815 (CCPA 1964).
Appellants’ above-noted argument that Geigy ‘464 does not
disclose use of the formazan dyes in combination with other dyes
is not persuasive because use of such mixtures is disclosed by
Balliello (col. 1, lines 53-60). Appellants’ above-noted
argument that the only metal complex dyes which Geigy ‘464
indicates as being preferable are azo dyes is not convincing
because the reference is not limited to its preferred
embodiments. See In re Kohler, 475 F.2d 651, 653, 177 USPQ 399,
400 (CCPA 1973); In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651, 176 USPQ 196,
198 (CCPA 1972). Instead, all disclosures in the reference must
be evaluated for what they would have fairly suggested to one of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007