Appeal No. 2004-1067
Application No. 09/773,292
motivated to form a blue dyeing mixture of Luttringer’s formula
(5) dye and his formula (7) dye by virtue of patentee’s express
teaching of dyeing materials from an aqueous liquor with “at
least one blue dyeing dye of formula” (5), (6) or (7) (abstract).
Additionally, there is no persuasive merit in the
appellants’ argument that “the host of possible combinations”
(brief, page 9, second full paragraph) disclosed by Luttringer
forestalls an obviousness conclusion with respect to the specific
dye combination proposed by the examiner. According to
patentee’s disclosure, all such combinations are effective, and
the fact that the patent discloses a multitude of such effective
combinations does not render less obvious the particular
combination identified by the examiner. 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).
We also are unconvinced by the appellants’ argument that
nonobviousness is evinced by Luttringer’s failure to disclose dye
formula (7) as a preferred embodiment (see the paragraph bridging
pages 9 and 10 of the brief). This is because an obviousness
inquiry under Section 103 requires consideration of the entire
prior art disclosure including unpreferred as well as preferred
embodiments. Id. For similar reasons which are more thoroughly
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007