Appeal No. 2000-2179
Application No. 09/235,242
Even if we were to accept the appellants’ argument regarding
the preclusion of the beneficial free radical inhibitor in the
claims on appeal, our conclusion would not be altered. As
indicated supra, O’Lenick specifically teaches that its process
can be carried out without any free radical inhibitors. See
Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d
1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989)(“‘the fact that a specific
[embodiment] is taught to be preferred is not controlling, since
all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred
embodiments, must be considered’”); In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965,
148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966)(all of the disclosures in a
reference, including non-preferred embodiments, “must be
evaluated for what they fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the
art”).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007