Interference No. 104,693
Preputnick v. Provencher
the prior art patent is attempting to protect. The concept of
'teaching away" is much broader than and is based on the entire
technical disclosure of a prior art reference.
As is indicated by the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit in EWP Corip. v. Reliance Universal, Inc., 7S5 F.2d 898,
907, 225 USPQ 20, 25 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843
(198S), a reference must be considered for everything it teaches
by way of technology and is not limited to the particular
invention it is describing and attempting to protect. Likewise,
a reference must be evaluated for all its teachings and is not
limited to its specific embodiments. In re Bode, 5SO F.2d 656,
661, 193 USPQ 12, 17 (CCPA 1977); In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400,
1403, 176 USPQ 328, 329 (CCPA 1973).
According to Hashiguchi, an advantage for not securing the
two modules together is that any one d amaged module can be more
easily substituted. But it nowhere indicates that that
particular advantage is necessary or required for the connector
to have practical utility as a connector. While the advantage is
desirable and a part of the innovation of Hashiguchi, Hashiguchi
as a whole also indicates the operability of connectors made
without its particular innovation, albeit such connectors would
be without the advantage of easy single module substitution.
- 34
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007