Appeal No. 2001-0127
Application No. 09/121,636
used for the very same purpose. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846,
850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
The appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been led away from using isobutyl methacrylate,
either alone or in combination with butyl methacrylate, because
it is not recited in any claim of the Anton patent and it is not
one of the preferred monomers as described in the reference at
column 3, lines 47-51. (Appeal brief, pages 6-8.) This
argument has no merit. All of the disclosures of a prior art
reference, including non-preferred embodiments, must be
considered for what they fairly teach one of ordinary skill in
the art. Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Labs. Inc., 874 F.2d 804,
807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi,
681 F.2d 792, 794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re
Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In
re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966).
The appellants argue that Anton does not teach combining
butyl methacrylate and isobutyl methacrylate and "using the
resulting polymer in a method to achieve surprising performance
improvements in floor polishes." (Appeal brief, page 8.) On
this point, however, we are in complete agreement with the
examiner's analysis at pages 5-6 of the answer.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007