Appeal No. 2002-1799 Page 7
Application No. 09/353,592
would have envisioned the selection of the outside surface of the
inside container as one of those limited alternatives which were
available as options for keeping the rate modifier separate from
the polymerizable material in the Figure 3 applicator of Leung as
required by Leung and with a reasonable expectation of success in
so doing.
As a final point, we note that Leung is not limited to the
preferred or exemplified embodiments disclosed therein as
appellants would appear to argue. Rather, Leung may be relied
upon for all that patent would have reasonably conveyed to one
having ordinary skill in the art. See In re Beattie, 974 F.2d
1309, 1313, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Young,
927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Merck &
Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories, Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807,
10 USPQ2d 1843, 1847 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Accordingly, for the
reasons set forth above and in the answer, we shall sustain the
examiner’s rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007