Appeal No. 2004-1448
Application No. 09/454,723
In one embodiment thereof, the reversible motor of the projection screen
system is a DC powered, reversible motor and the system also includes a
DC power supply such as a rechargeable battery, permitting the system to
be installed without connection to an external power supply and also
providing a portable motorized projection screen system.
Shopp col. 3, ll. 56-62 (emphasis added).
In a Section 103 inquiry “‘the fact that a specific [embodiment] is taught to be
preferred is not controlling, since all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred
embodiments, must be considered.’” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804,
807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747,
750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976)). “‘The use of patents as references is not
limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with
which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they
contain.’” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
(quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Shopp discloses that a rechargeable battery is not the only species of DC power
supply that may be used for powering the DC motor. Shopp’s disclosure would have
suggested to the skilled artisan the full range of DC power supply types that would have
been suitable to provide power to the motor, or at least those being portable and not
requiring connection to an additional (external) power supply. Moreover, the instant
rejection is based on a combination of references. The rejection asserts that Shopp
would have suggested to the artisan providing a window covering, as disclosed by
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007