Appeal No. 1999-2329
Application 08/642,278
first full paragraph on page 9 of the reply brief. In
essence, appellants’ argument is that it would not have been
obvious to use the oriented tubing disclosed by Fanselow in
the method of Fairchild, because no example of Fanselow
teaches orienting the tubing, and “The teaching of Fanselow is
not to use the orienting step” (brief, page 16; similarly,
reply brief, page 9).
This argument is not persuasive. The fact that oriented
tubing is not used in Fanselow’s examples is not
determinative, since “All the disclosure in a reference, not
just the specific examples, must be evaluated for what it
fairly teaches those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 1403, 176 USPQ 328, 329 (CCPA 1973).
See also In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179, 201 USPQ 67,
70 (CCPA 1979) (all disclosures of the prior art, including
unpreferred embodiments, must be considered in determining
obviousness). Moreover, we do not agree with appellants that
Fanselow teaches not to use oriented tubing. The Fanselow
patent specifically discloses that the tubing of its invention
may be used as medical tubing, such as in “intravenous (IV)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007