Appeal No. 2005-0708
Application No. 09/968,967
that meet the limitations of the claimed goniochromatic pigments
(Brief, page 9).
These arguments are not well taken. First we note that the
disclosure of a prior art reference is not limited to its
examples. See In re Widmer, 353 F.2d 752, 757, 147 USPQ 518, 523
(CCPA 1965). A prior art reference is available for all that it
teaches and suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art. In
this rejection on appeal, Medelnick specifically teaches that
multilayer goniochromatic pigments as described are “to be
understood as gloss pigments suitable for use in accordance with
the invention.” Page 2, ll. 6-13. The specific multilayer
structure taught by Medelnick as “gloss pigments” fall within the
scope of the claimed “goniochromatic pigment having an
interferential multilayer structure comprising at least two
layers,” as specified in claim 1 on appeal (see Medelnick, page
2, ll. 18-33; compare with the materials listed in claim 1 on
appeal).
Appellants argue there are at least four limitations whose
choice must be made by the examiner (Brief, page 9), and
Medelnick provides no rationale or functional arguments to pick
the concentrations of the ingredients or the combination of the
three instantly claimed ingredients (Brief, page 10).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007