Appeal No. 2005-1894
Application No. 10/209,004
re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
Sandhu and Hosaka would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary
skill in the art, using Hosaka’s method in Sandhu’s method to
provide the above-discussed benefits disclosed by Hosaka.
The appellant argues that “Sandhu teach[es] away from the
use of polysilicon electrode materials such as those taught by
Hosaka because they are subject to oxidation” (brief, page 7).
This argument is not convincing because Hosaka teaches that the
electrode material can be platinum (page 5), which is the same
material used by Sandhu (col. 6, line 52).
The appellant argues that “while Hosaka teach[es] the use of
platinum as a possible electrode material, it is clear from
reading the reference that polysilicon is the preferred material
for use, as evidenced by Hosaka’s disclosure and working
examples” (brief, pages 7-8). We are not persuaded by this
argument because Hosaka is not limited to its preferred
embodiments, see In re Kohler, 475 F.2d 651, 653, 177 USPQ 399,
400 (CCPA 1973); In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651, 176 USPQ 196,
198 (CCPA 1972); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545,
549 (CCPA 1969), or to its working examples. See In re
Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA
1982); Mills, 470 F.2d at 651, 176 USPQ at 198.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007