Appeal No. 2004-0149
Application No. 09/803,612
the claims (Paper No. 17, page 7; Answer, page 5). Accordingly,
the examiner states that every limitation recited in the claims on
appeal is described by Appel within the meaning of section 102
(Answer, page 5). We agree.
Appellants argue that Appel does not disclose fabrics bearing
dyes which are susceptible to fading, nor does the reference
appreciate the use of transition metal catalysts as important for
preventing or reducing dye damage (Brief, page 11). These
arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons. Appellants
are correct that Appel does not specifically disclose fabrics with
fadeable dyes as a laundry substrate (Brief, page 12) but the term
“laundry” disclosed by Appel can reasonably be interpreted as
encompassing white fabrics and fabrics with dyes (all dyes may be
considered as “fadeable” to some extent). Disclosure of such a
small genus would have put every species within this genus within
the possession of the public, i.e., the disclosure of “laundry”
describes each of the above listed species. See In re Petering,
301 F.2d 676, 681-82, 133 USPQ 275, 279-80 (CCPA 1972); In re
Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 315-317, 197 USPQ 5, 8-9 (CCPA 1978); and
In re Sivaramakrishnan, 673 F.2d 1383, 1384, 213 USPQ 441, 442
(CCPA 1982).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007