Appeal No.2003-0078 Page 5
Application No.09/257,066
choose appellants’ claimed composition with a reasonable
expectation of success in so doing. We disagree.
We note that the Falk patents are not limited to the
preferred or exemplified embodiments disclosed therein as
appellants would appear to argue. Rather, the Falk patents may
be relied upon for all they would have reasonably conveyed to one
having ordinary skill in the art. See In re Beattie, 974 F.2d
1309, 24 USPQ2d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
18 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft
Laboratories, Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.
1989).
Falk ‘9671 discloses three subgeneric choices (anionic,
amphoteric or cationic) for both the fluorinated and non-
fluorinated surfactants. Clearly, one of ordinary skill in the
art would have recognized that the combination of amphoteric
fluorinated and amphoteric non-fluorinated surfactants were one
of the limited number of choices available for those components.
Moreover, Falk ‘967 teaches that an electrolyte may be employed
in the composition and lists ammonium salts as one of a few
1 Our rebuttal of appellants’ arguments with respect to Falk
‘967 also applies to Falk ‘286 since Falk ‘286 refers to the AFFF
composition of Falk ‘967 as a composition which would benefit
from the ion pair complex addition described in Falk ‘286.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007