Appeal No. 1997-3729 8 Application No. 08/362,107 claimed subject matter. It is appellants’ contention throughout the Brief that, “[t]he examiner has provided no teaching that would lead one to select the grain or teach [one] how to form the grain such as specified in the claims.” See Reply Brief, pages 4 and 5. While we acknowledge that Takada discloses numerous combinations of photographic emulsions, the fact that a patent discloses other effective combinations, does not render any particular formulation less obvious. We find this particularly true because the claimed subject matter is used for the identical purpose taught by the prior art, i.e., a photographic emulsion having a silver halide substrate and a silver iodide shell. See Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807-08, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493, U.S. 975 (1989). Furthermore, in a § 103 inquiry, the teaching of a preferred specific embodiment is not controlling since the disclosure of the entire prior art including the non-preferred embodiments must be considered. Id. Accordingly, we conclude that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the teachings of Takada to obtain photographic emulsions [and the preparation thereof], within the scope of the claimed subject matter. As to claim 6 directed to tetradecahedral grains having {111} and {100} faces, appellants have explicitly acknowledged the teachings of Takada at column 13, line 26 specifically disclosing the requisite grain of the claimed subject matter. We accordinglyPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007