Appeal No. 2002-0148
Application No. 09/104,675
is that the rejection provides a teaching, suggestion, or
motivation to make the combination. See In re Dillon, 919 F.2d
688, 692-93, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(en banc),
cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). Bohan expressly teaches a
most preferred low-coupler embodiment within the appellants’
claimed range.
Additionally, it is not fatal to a case of obviousness that
a particular example in the reference may fail to have the gamma
ratio characteristics recited in the claim. It is well-settled
that a prior art reference is relevant for all that it teaches to
those of ordinary skill in the art (In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992)) and that a reference
is not limited to the specific working examples (In re Chapman,
357 F.2d 418, 424, 148 USPQ 711, 716 (CCPA 1966)). We also
reject this argument as Sample 2 must be modified to reflect the
closest prior art.
The appellants also object to the examiner’s position as
based upon hindsight reconstruction. (Appeal Brief, page 6,
lines 8-19; page 8, lines 1-3). We disagree.
The examiner’s position is based upon the disclosure of the
prior art reference, which he reasonably believes to have the
claimed ratios. Appellant’s definition of the term “gamma ratio”
within the specification requires the examiner to reference the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007