Appeal No. 1999-1904 Page 7
Application No. 08/704,778
A reference is not limited to its preferred embodiment, but must be evaluated for all of
its teachings, including its teachings of non-preferred embodiments. See In re Burckel, 592
F.2d 1175, 1179, 201 USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA 1979).
As appellant's claim 25 does not specify the degree of compression of the legs or
require that the legs be received in the groove in said compressed condition in all installed states
(e.g., any temperature or moisture content), we conclude that the subject matter of claim 25 is
met by the teachings of the non-preferred form of Scarlett's invention. Accordingly, we shall
sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Additionally, as
appellant's brief (page 4) states that claims 26-31, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40 and 42-49 stand or fall
with independent claim 25, we shall also sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 27-31, 34-
36, 39, 40 and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and of claims 26 and 42-48 under 35 U.S.C. §
103. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re
Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978).
While appellant has elected to separately argue the patentability of claim 41 apart from
independent claim 25, the only argument (brief, pages 8 and 9) advanced by appellant in
support of claim 41 is based on the assertion that the legs 37 of Scarlett's web are not received
in the groove in a compressed condition in an installed state. For the reasons discussed, supra,
with respect to claim 25, we also do not find this argument persuasive with respect to claim 41.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007