Interference No. 105,188
Short v. Punnonnen
In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966),
instructs, “All of the disclosures in a reference must be
evaluated for what they fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the
art.” Similarly, In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 661, 193 USPQ 12, 17
5 (CCPA 1977), directs, “A reference must be evaluated for all it
teaches and is not limited to its specific embodiments.” “[A]
prior art reference is relevant for all that it teaches to those
of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1982). Summarizing, In re
10 Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir.
1983), instructs:
As the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals said in a section
103 case (In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275,
277 ([CCPA] 1968)):
15
“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
20 they contain.”
We previously focused on the preferred embodiments of both
the Freeman PCT and the Short PCT and their shortcomings relative
to the specific subject matter defined by Punnonen’s Claim 47.
25 However, Stemmer’s view of the state of the art (Exh. 2052) is
entitled to considerable weight because it is the unbiased view
of one of Punnonen’s co-inventors and it was published long
-23-
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007