Appeal No. 1998-2916
Application No. 08/606,975
the 0.4 lower limit TiCl to H flow rate as claimed.4 2
We further disagree with Appellant’s contention that
Sandhu’s disclosure of flow rate values lower than the claimed
0.4 value amount to a teaching away from the claimed
invention. Each reference must be read, not in isolation, but
for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art
as a whole. It is improper to downgrade a reference on the
basis that it teaches away, unless it teaches away in the
context of the combination of references. In re Keller, 642
F. 2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck &
Co., Inc., 800 F. 2d 1091, 1096, 231
USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In our view, Sandhu’s
teaching of a flow rate ratio 0.4 or greater as presently
claimed is not devalued because of the suggested flow rate
ratios below the claimed lower 0.4 limit.
As to Appellant’s argument (Brief, page 13) that the
Examiner has failed to consider evidence of non-obviousness in
the specification, we agree with the Examiner that, contrary
to Appellant’s assertion, this evidence has in fact been
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007